Should Oregon Move to the B1G? I’m Not Convinced

[FishDuck Article]

There are a lot of people talking about how getting into the B1G is a must for the Ducks to not be left behind. When the news first broke that USC and UCLA were headed to the B1G, I was certainly in this camp. I felt like Oregon needed to do everything they could to get into the B1G as ...

 

Should Oregon Move to the B1G? I'm Not Convinced

FISHDUCK.COM

---

There are a lot of people talking about how getting into the B1G is a must for the Ducks to not be left behind. When the news first broke that...

[Haywarduck]

No disrespect intended, but how come a high school social studies teacher can do the math better than the administration at UCLA? Another great article David, and I imagine you aren't too bad at chess either.

[Just Ducky]

 Good article to take up space in a slow time for college sports.

 

 We spend a lot of time talking about a subject that probably won’t happen. I’ve stated several times the reasons I think it won’t happen so I won’t waste ink listing them again. UCLA better make the playoffs this year cuz it’s their last shot. I don’t see usc doing it either. The longer this drags on the cooler heads will prevail. 
 

 IMHO I think the pack will survive and Oregon will spend the rest of my life making the playoffs year after year and I will leave this life a happy man.

 

 Go s

[Rufus]

Great article. One thing though - the B1G media deal is backloaded.  It increases year over year.  Year 1 does not include the LA schools. Year 1 also does not include a full payout from CBS because it still has 1 year left on the SEC contract and will only air minimal B1G games the first year.  
 

Year 1 will see the B1G make around $60 million per year. It’s years 3, 4, 5 where the numbers skyrocket.  When the B1G and SEC renew their contracts next time, the gap will further widen.  
 

I 100% agree that UCLA is a case study for media revenue generation, just remember that in their first year in the B1G, revenues will be less than the following year, which will be less than the year after that due to the backloaded nature of the B1G media rights deal.  These gaps will continue to widen between the B1G/SEC and everyone else.

 

Another case study to watch out for - media coverage.  USC and UCLA are likely going to receive more nationwide media coverage in the B1G than ever before. That will only help their recruiting going forward.  The PAC 12 will be stuck on Apple TV and if we are lucky late night ESPN when half the nation is in bed.  For those hyping B1G games airing on Peacock, only 8 total games for the entire season (including non-conference) will air exclusively on Peacock.  There is no way the PAC will only have 8 games exclusively streamed.  It’s likely to be the majority of games.  So part of this case study should include media coverage and how that impacts CFP rankings and recruiting going forward.  

Think how high our ratings would be under the B1G media contract.  All of the nationwide media coverage and the best time slots available for the major games.  

 

Big Ten Lands Historic Media Rights Deal; More Expansion Ahead?

WWW.ACTIONNETWORK.COM

---

Read on for Brett McMurphy's report about the Big Ten Conference's new historic media rights deal and potential...

 

 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Rufus

[David Marsh]

On 6/27/2023 at 6:49 AM, Rufus said:

the B1G media deal is backloaded.  It increases year over year.  Year 1 does not include the LA schools. Year 1 also does not include a full payout from CBS because it still has 1 year left on the SEC contract and will only air minimal B1G games the first year.  

That's why we have to watch the revenue and expense numbers from UCLA every year starting in 2024. 

 

In UCLA'S first year i doubt it'd put them in the black for the year. When the numbers increase will that push UCLA into the black or keep them in the red still? 

 

I honestly don't have an answer and there are soany other factors at play that all we can really do is watch. 

[Thomallister1291]

Hopefully staying in the Pac does pay-off well even if the money we will get will be lower compared to the Big Ten, tho finally seeing us winning the national championship will be a dream come true.

 

If we win it all and play Alabama either in the post-season or in non-conference play I'll die a happy man

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/27/2023 at 9:49 AM, Rufus said:

Great article. One thing though - the B1G media deal is backloaded.  It increases year over year.  Year 1 does not include the LA schools. Year 1 also does not include a full payout from CBS because it still has 1 year left on the SEC contract and will only air minimal B1G games the first year.  
 

Year 1 will see the B1G make around $60 million per year. It’s years 3, 4, 5 where the numbers skyrocket.  When the B1G and SEC renew their contracts next time, the gap will further widen.  
 

I 100% agree that UCLA is a case study for media revenue generation, just remember that in their first year in the B1G, revenues will be less than the following year, which will be less than the year after that due to the backloaded nature of the B1G media rights deal.  These gaps will continue to widen between the B1G/SEC and everyone else.

 

Another case study to watch out for - media coverage.  USC and UCLA are likely going to receive more nationwide media coverage in the B1G than ever before. That will only help their recruiting going forward.  The PAC 12 will be stuck on Apple TV and if we are lucky late night ESPN when half the nation is in bed.  For those hyping B1G games airing on Peacock, only 8 total games for the entire season (including non-conference) will air exclusively on Peacock.  There is no way the PAC will only have 8 games exclusively streamed.  It’s likely to be the majority of games.  So part of this case study should include media coverage and how that impacts CFP rankings and recruiting going forward.  

Think how high our ratings would be under the B1G media contract.  All of the nationwide media coverage and the best time slots available for the major games.  

 

Big Ten Lands Historic Media Rights Deal; More Expansion Ahead?

WWW.ACTIONNETWORK.COM

---

Read on for Brett McMurphy's report about the Big Ten Conference's new historic media rights deal and potential...

 

 

Rufus, Brett McMurphy is often wrong but never in doubt. Linear TV is going the way of the Dodo Bird. The SEC needed one media entity, Disney/ESPN, to do its new media deal. Fox, with a 61% ownership stake in the B1G Network, needed to raid LA and add NBC/Peacock and CBS to arrive at $70M, oops, 65M gross per member school. Kevin Warren promised NBC that it would broadcast the B1G football championship game. He had no right to do so and this led to a $5M haircut. You have to figure that the LA schools were worth a very conservative $20M to the B1G media deal bottom line. This equates to the B1G without the LA schools bringing in around $45M a team. 

 

As noted by Maryland's president the other day even if the B1G wanted to further expand the media money in today's market is not available to fund further expansion. 

 

The LA schools were not aware that Peacock, a streaming service with fewer than 20M subscribers and none of the massive ancillary services offered by Apple/Amazon, will be broadcasting a number of their home games. NBC has informed Michigan State that it will be broadcasting the UW game and Peacock has moved a Sparty home game from E. Lansing to Detroit. This is a far cry from SC and UCLA getting the Pac-12 to knuckle under and agree to the 4 CA schools playing one another every season in football. The LA schools did not even have the scheduling juice to have Nebraska, 1500 miles away and closest to the LA schools as a permanent football scheduling partner. 

 

And the B1G is not big across the board in athletics. It last won a CBB title in 2000. It has won 1 football championship and placed one more school than the Pac-12 in the playoff field. Ohio State is now close to .500 in playoff games and Michigan and Michigan State are 0-3. Baseball, softball, golf, track+ field, etc., are off the NCAA championship radar. The B1G is big not because of on-field and on-court results like the SEC but because of geography and legions of alumni/alumnae. 

 

It seems to me that USC and UCLA sold out their athletes, especially their non-revenue sports athletes. In order to finish in the black they are sending all of their athletes two time zones plus for every away game. How many more UCLA and USC athletes will make money in the pros because the schools are in the B1G? Damn few if any. How many more administrators will be hired to oversee athletic operations and how much will the administrator's salaries be bumped? A lot. Oregon sports made bank last season and finished in the black notwithstanding an average media deal. How many B1G and SEC schools finished in the black? Certainly not the majority of the schools in the B1G and the SEC.

 

Like David, I was at first certain that a move to the B1G was paramount for Oregon to continue to be competitive in football. But a 12-team playoff field has entirely changed the playoff calculus. In an 18-team conference and I doubt that the B1G would add just Oregon and UW, it will be far more difficult to make the football playoff. The Pac Conference champ is in the playoff most likely with a 1st round bye and the Pac will have an excellent shot at picking up one of the 6 at-large bids. 

 

Oregon if invited to the B1G will be invited at less than a full media share. I have no interest in Oregon being a junior partner to Maryland, Rutgers, Illinois, Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Iowa, unless there is no other place to play.

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

David, thanks for touching all of the bases in this terrific article. There is no place like home and home isn't in Piscataway, New Jersey.

[David Marsh]

Here are some topics that I have seen brought up on the FishDuck Forum in other posts that I would like to quickly address that my article hinted at but perhaps did not explicitly address and I didn’t want to do a full rewrite. The quotations are paraphrases… 

 

“The Ducks should get to the B1G even if it comes at a reduced payout” 

 

No, this doesn’t pencil with my basic grasp of math. Right now Oregon is making around 30 million dollars in media revenue. Entering the B1G at a reduced rate, lets say at half is going to be about 30 million dollars (I’m rounding but it honestly doesn’t matter). This isn’t status quo upon joining in this circumstance but actually a significant pay CUT because now Oregon would have to travel a lot and any profit they were making is going to get reduced if not fully wiped out. 

 

It is even unclear right now if a full cut of the B1G media revenue will help Oregon as we have to wait and see if it will even help UCLA in a significant way. 

 

“Oregon would eventually receive a full share of the B1G media revenue” 

 

Sure… that would be part of the deal but unless FOX and NBC are willing to proportionally add enough money for B1G expansion to give Oregon and Washington for that matter a proportional share they will have to pay out more money to make that possible. Oregon does have a big fanbase but it is not a very easy fan base to track because its national or global in some cases, unlike USC or UCLA which they are only really counting as a regional fanbase in the L.A. market. 

 

The reality is that everyone in the B1G would probably receive a smaller slice of the pie for the addition of Oregon and Washington and that will probably be the biggest block to the notion of adding either to the B1G than anything else. 

 

[David Marsh]

On 6/27/2023 at 5:24 AM, Haywarduck said:

No disrespect intended, but how come a high school social studies teacher can do the math better than the administration at UCLA? Another great article David, and I imagine you aren't too bad at chess either.

And as a high school social studies teacher we are certainly not known for our math skills... or engineering skills but that is a story for another time.

 

Now there are other factors at play when it comes to revenue and UCLA joining the B1G that we will have to watch for, but from a sheer media rights perspective it doesn't make sense to me.

[The Kamikaze Kid]

I think we're seeing the final days of static contract payouts to conferences by television companies. TV is losing it's stranglehold on viewership yearly to the internet and losing it fast. Cord cutting is a real thing and this will have to be taken into account sooner or later. At some point, contracts will have to be based on true market value not just speculation based on market potential.

 

Just looking at the Pac there is no way you can convince me that Cal with the bay area market or UCLA in Los Angeles has higher viewing numbers than UO in a mid sized college town. In fact many if not most major universities are situated in college towns. It is why the term college town exists in the first place. Most of the SEC  exists in "small markets" with extremely loyal fan bases.

 

Also, handing out money hand over fist to perpetual bottom feeders in the SEC or Big 10 doesn't make sense long term in the era of dwindling media dollars. In short, I think bloated media contracts with a lot of dead weight baked in will soon become a thing of the past. With media delivery switching towards streaming, it would make sense to reward contracts based on loyal following and support to get the most out of the money spent.

 

In this day and age there are independent media outlets with higher youtube followers than CNN or FOX or anybody else. I am sure the same can be said for Universities with active social media presence. I can see a day soon arriving were streaming companies pay out meager lump sums to conference members but reward individual universities with compensation based on the number of views per game.

 

If the UO for example had 50,000,000 world wide social media fans and promoted their up coming games on various social media platforms, then had around 10.000.000 viewers per game, that would be far more valuable to the streaming service than UCLA with no fans or Indiana Vs Northwestern in the Big 10. If Streamers payed out just $1 per view, that would be $10,000,000 per game based on this example.

This would reward universities with active streaming presence and ignore universities with milk toast support.

 

I think this is the direction media contracts will be headed. I don't think jumping into a conference halfway across the country will be required to be rewarded for true media value.

 

[Rufus]

Peacock is only exclusively streaming 8 games per year, including non-conference games. That doesn’t even amount to one game per week and there will be 16 games played per week during non-conference weeks and 8 games played per week during conference play.  The Peacock portion will only impact a select number of B1G schools for one game total in all likelihood.  
 

Even if Oregon is invited at a reduced share, it will only be for a limited time.  Original agreements with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers were 7 year reduced share agreements. Maryland and Rutgers had years added on only because they took out loans from the B1G in the early years and are now repaying those loans.  Also, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers were still payed more money at the reduced share rate than they would have made in their previous conferences.  Maryland has always earned more than Rutgers even though they joined at the same time because the ACC paid Maryland more than the Big East paid Rutgers at the time they were admitted to the conference.  Schools aren’t at the reduced rate forever, it’s temporary. 
 

Regarding the playoffs, current rules are only in effect for 12 teams and 6 highest ranked conference champions in 2024 and 2025.  Everything after that is up in the air.  Nothing is guaranteed after 2025. 
 

If things are better because of playoff access for lack of competition in the PAC-12, why aren’t USC and UCLA clamoring to return to the PAC-12?  Why aren’t Texas and Oklahoma clamoring to return to the Big 12?  Cincinnati, Houston and UCF can more easily be a top 6 conference champion in the American, why aren’t they clamoring to return?  

Edited June 27, 2023 by Rufus

[David Marsh]

On 6/27/2023 at 8:15 AM, Rufus said:

Even if Oregon is invited at a reduced share, it will only be for a limited time.  Original agreements with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers were 7 year reduced share agreements. Maryland and Rutgers had years added on only because they took out loans from the B1G in the early years and are now repaying those loans.  Also, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers were still payed more money at the reduced share rate than they would have made in their previous conferences.  Maryland has always earned more than Rutgers even though they joined at the same time because the ACC paid Maryland more than the Big East paid Rutgers at the time they were admitted to the conference.  Schools aren’t at the reduced rate forever, it’s temporary. 

But the other major factor there is that all those schools you listed didn't have to take on anywhere near the same amount of travel burden. Nebraska added quite a lot of travel but they are still a whole lot closer to the heart of the B1G than the L.A. schools. Again... its about a four-five hour flight from LA to Lincoln, Nebraska.

 

So let's just say Oregon gets a reduced payout of lets say... 45 million a year. Sure that would be more than what will probably be the new Pac media contract but probably no where near enough to coverage the added travel burden.

 

Also 7 years would probably be far too long for Oregon and Washington to take a reduced share with this additional burden. Sure, going into the red for a few years knowing that a big payout is coming is completely doable but again, I'm not convinced there would be a big enough payout.

[Tandaian]

USC/UCLA and Texas/Oklahoma haven't played a single game in their new conferences, and we haven't moved to the new playoff model.  There hasn't been time for them to see the cause and effect of moving conferences.  Travel is going to be a bit more for Texas/Oklahoma, but not nearly as much as USC/UCLA. 

 

I don't think travel is going to be an issue for Texas/Oklahoma, but not being "elite" in football is going to eat away at those fan bases.  The universities aren't going to care because they will be making money.

[Notalot]

A whole new playing field of conferences is emerging squeezed by media entities. It will take 5-10 years to fully shake out. I don't see either of the Pac or ACC playing big boy football in the end.

 

Oregon will be in the elite level of college football with 40-50 other teams. I have no idea beyond that how scheduling and alignments will work.

 

Darwinism with insider meddling.

 

[David Marsh]

On 6/27/2023 at 8:42 AM, Tandaian said:

USC/UCLA and Texas/Oklahoma haven't played a single game in their new conferences, and we haven't moved to the new playoff model.  There hasn't been time for them to see the cause and effect of moving conferences.  Travel is going to be a bit more for Texas/Oklahoma, but not nearly as much as USC/UCLA. 

 

I don't think travel is going to be an issue for Texas/Oklahoma, but not being "elite" in football is going to eat away at those fan bases.  The universities aren't going to care because they will be making money.

I do feel you are onto something here. Texas and Oklahoma will see increased travel costs but not to the same extent due to the geography. Put it this way, Texas and Oklahoma both touch other states that contain SEC schools within them. California doesn't touch another B1G state. So when thinking about the extra revenue for Texas and Oklahoma they will both see the actual benefit of that revenue because their travel costs will in general not shoot through the roof.

 

The LA schools have also been suffering from not being elite in football for ages. UCLA can't fill the Rose Bowl for top 25 match-ups. USC got a shot of life in them last year with Riley as their head coach and doing better on the field but will that momentum continue in the B1G? Also... those fan bases really won't be able to travel too much to B1G country. Sure they might a bit to the big games like Ohio State, or Michigan or Penn State... but they won't travel to Rutgers.

 

Texas hasn't been a big power in almost two decades and the fan base is hungry to be relevant again. Oklahoma has been the run of the Big-12 for years and it is unlikely they will have the run of the SEC. Fan bases may love the extra money for their school but probably not the lack of conference championships.

[Just Ducky]

 Just when I thought college athletics was moving towards fairness to college athletes, well, clearly it is not. I guess I lost my mind for a year or so. I played sports in college and traveling was my least favorite thing to do. Wears on your mind and the sleep you get is not good sleep. If you play in the big boy houses once a year is way different than doing it 4 times a year.

 
 Winning at Michigan and Ohio State was a rare event. Can’t expect outcomes like that very often. Winning on the road in the pack is tough enough. Believe it or not it’s all about the wins, not much else matters.

[Jon Joseph]

A timely take on this subject from Matt Hayes. This time from the B1G site Saturday Traditions. Hayes notes that the B1G will not author the destruction of the Pac-10 (Right?) and cautions that media dollars may not be in place to fund further expansion. Spot on in regards to media money.

 

Hayes has 5 Pac-10 schools as potential B1G additions: Cal, Oregon, Stanford, and UW are on every potential expansion list I have seen but Utah is a new candidate. I think CU would be in the running ahead of Utah.

 

The B1G 10: Expansion hinges on timing of Pac-12, ACC implosions. It’s ‘when?’, not ‘if’

SATURDAYTRADITION.COM

---

The Big Ten will seek football powers that can earn the league 'units' in the expanded Playoff, columnist Matt Hayes says in the...

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/27/2023 at 12:07 PM, Just Ducky said:

 Just when I thought college athletics was moving towards fairness to college athletes, well, clearly it is not. I guess I lost my mind for a year or so. I played sports in college and traveling was my least favorite thing to do. Wears on your mind and the sleep you get is not good sleep. If you play in the big boy houses once a year is way different than doing it 4 times a year.

 
 Winning at Michigan and Ohio State was a rare event. Can’t expect outcomes like that very often. Winning on the road in the pack is tough enough. Believe it or not it’s all about the wins, not much else matters.

Great take. But all about the Ws or the $s?

[Just Ducky]

On 6/27/2023 at 9:13 AM, Jon Joseph said:

Great take. But all about the Ws or the $s?

Yes Jon, guess I should have added winning will turn into dollars if you do it enough. Lol.

[Charles Fischer]

What is the ultimate objective?

 

To achieve what has never been done at Oregon before…win a ‘Natty!

 

Forget the finances-focus on the next five years; which league gives Dan Lanning the best chance to win it all?

 

To win a ‘Natty, we will face the best of the SEC and B1G in the Playoffs.  If we beat them…will we care what league we were in?

 

All that matters is winning it.

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/27/2023 at 11:15 AM, Rufus said:

Peacock is only exclusively streaming 8 games per year, including non-conference games. That doesn’t even amount to one game per week and there will be 16 games played per week during non-conference weeks and 8 games played per week during conference play.  The Peacock portion will only impact a select number of B1G schools for one game total in all likelihood.  
 

Even if Oregon is invited at a reduced share, it will only be for a limited time.  Original agreements with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers were 7 year reduced share agreements. Maryland and Rutgers had years added on only because they took out loans from the B1G in the early years and are now repaying those loans.  Also, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers were still payed more money at the reduced share rate than they would have made in their previous conferences.  Maryland has always earned more than Rutgers even though they joined at the same time because the ACC paid Maryland more than the Big East paid Rutgers at the time they were admitted to the conference.  Schools aren’t at the reduced rate forever, it’s temporary. 
 

Regarding the playoffs, current rules are only in effect for 12 teams and 6 highest ranked conference champions in 2024 and 2025.  Everything after that is up in the air.  Nothing is guaranteed after 2025. 
 

If things are better because of playoff access for lack of competition in the PAC-12, why aren’t USC and UCLA clamoring to return to the PAC-12?  Why aren’t Texas and Oklahoma clamoring to return to the Big 12?  Cincinnati, Houston and UCF can more easily be a top 6 conference champion in the American, why aren’t they clamoring to return?  

I do not believe you can project out any future revenues based on today's media model or what has happened in the past. I think we will see media income being distributed disparately when the next media deals are done in 5 or so seasons. We are seeing this happening partially with the ACC giving bigger slices to its teams that bring in bank from the CBB and CFB tournaments and the Pac-12 is rumored to be doing the same when it comes to football. Come 2026 because of the love of money I expect the football playoff will move to 16 teams with no 1st round byes and the CBB tournament is supposedly moving to an 80-team field.

 

Playoff money will be far easier to score in a 12-team conference than in what would be at least an at least 18-team conference. And I do give a whip about college kids having to face professional-like travel with demands on their time that pros do not have. Where is the extra media money going to go? To the players? No way. UCLA plays 11 men's varsity sports and 14 women's varsity sports. How many teams will fly charter and not commercial. And will Title 9 come into to play for women's teams that have to fly commercial. As David noted in 2024 UCLA football will travel 26,000 miles. What will the travel budget be for 1 sport let alone all of the other sports? 

 

1 game on Peacock restricted to 20M viewers stinks let alone 8 games. And the Michigan State fans had no say in Peacock moving a home game to Detroit. 20M isn't a heck of a lot better than the Pac Network's 13M subscribers. UCLA and USC and Oklahoma and Texas having pledged their media rights to their new conference are in no position to return even if they so desired. There are many UCLA fans and a number of SC fans that are not happy about this move. Let's see how many football and basketball titles the LA schools win in the B1G. 

 

I enjoy your comments. Out of curiosity and not intending to be the least bit snarky, did you attend a B1G school? You are very bullish on a conference that makes money but has done nothing of significance when it comes to winning titles. 

 

 

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/27/2023 at 12:14 PM, cartm25 said:

Great point here, and one that doesn't get enough air-time.

 

"IF" the P12 contract is mostly--or all--streaming from Amazon / Apple, then what incentive does ESPN / Fox have to promote/highlight the Oregon Ducks?

 

The most watched college football program is ESPN College Gameday . . . and I'm sure second is Fox's Big Noon Kickoff. Why would either of these programs showcase P12 matchups shown on Amazon / Apple?

Except, ESPN has given notice that almost all of its future events will be streamed. Linear TV will be replaced by streaming sooner rather than later. Because of belt-tightening, Gameday was not at last year's Army/Navy game. And if ESPN wants to remain dominant in CFB broadcasting it cannot restrict the national coverage of CFB with the playoff moving to 12 teams. 

 

A conference is not just composed of its premier teams. How often has Gameday shown up in Evanston, Illinois for a Northwester versus Rutgers game compared to Game Day appearances in Eugene? Oregon football is not going to drop off of the national radar because the LA schools are moving to the B1G where UCLA will not compete for football titles and SC will be hard-pressed to win football championships. Last season with the Heisman winner at QB, SC did not win the conference title and lost to a G5 team in its bowl game. Come 2024 Caleb Williams will be in the NFL and not in South Central. 

[David Marsh]

On 6/27/2023 at 9:14 AM, cartm25 said:

Great point here, and one that doesn't get enough air-time.

 

"IF" the P12 contract is mostly--or all--streaming from Amazon / Apple, then what incentive does ESPN / Fox have to promote/highlight the Oregon Ducks?

 

The most watched college football program is ESPN College Gameday . . . and I'm sure second is Fox's Big Noon Kickoff. Why would either of these programs showcase P12 matchups shown on Amazon / Apple?

Last year ESPN's College Game Day came to Eugene for the Oregon-UCLA game. The game itself was broadcast on FOX.

 

In the end I don't think where the game is presented matters all that much. Highlights are going to make it to the traditional broadcasting platforms regardless.

 

I also think that there will be plenty of Pac games on a more traditional platform of TV with the new media deal. The biggest questions have been about how can the conference leverage the Pac-12 network to get more value out of it. It has one big thing going for it in terms of flexibility and that is it is a full media company in that it has all the staffing that is Pac. This has certainly hurt the network in trying to generate more revenue but will help potentially leverage it into a streaming platform because the one thing those platforms don't have is production of sports content in house.

 

I think Oregon will still find its way onto ABC or ESPN regularly enough with the new media deal. In the past three years Oregon has only been on the Pac-12 networks of less than 2 games per year (typically our game against an FCS opponent is on the Pac-12 and maybe another game and that's it). So for Oregon there will be PLENTY of national recognition if they play well.

[Rufus]

Jon, I did not attend any B1G schools.  I just see the writing on the wall and anyone not in the B1G or SEC will be at a huge disadvantage going forward. 

[David Marsh]

On 6/27/2023 at 11:24 AM, cartm25 said:

Without a partnership with ESPN / FOX I think the scenario you presented (CGD at Eugene broadcast by FOX) will happen less often . . . or at least ESPN / FOX will have less incentive to highlight it.

All parties involved would want to piggy back on each other. I am confident that those would develop quickly.

 

Also... the Pac-12 Network isn't terribly broad in its availability but you see their footage and them use footage from other channels all the time right now. I think you are touching on a major concern but I do think that it will get sorted out fairly easily.

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/27/2023 at 1:23 PM, Rufus said:

Jon, I did not attend any B1G schools.  I just see the writing on the wall and anyone not in the B1G or SEC will be at a huge disadvantage going forward. 

But I don't see the money in either conference equating to Vandy or Northwestern winning conference football championships. 

 

In today's world, your NIL collective has more influence on success than does the conference that you play in. Division Street is one of the top collectives in the nation. Oregon is still ahead of USC and UCLA and the majority of the B1G in 2024 football recruiting. Players are not bailing from Oregon en masse so they can play in the B1G. Oregon mainly due to location is not going to be able to recruit at the level of the top SEC teams. Ohio State and Michigan/Penn State sort of are the only B1G schools that recruiting-wise can hang with the SEC and for that matter, Oregon. 

 

And I reiterate, when it comes to championships the B1G money hasn't brought B1G teams close to competing for championships like SEC teams. And the lower half of the SEC does not compete for NCAA and football playoff titles. Plus, who will be the beneficiary of more media money? Certainly not the young men and women playing non-revenue sports. 

 

I do agree that CFB at the top level will continue to coalesce but will there be separate conferences or a Super League; especially, when football and basketball players are deemed to be employees of the university they play for? Today's CFB calculus will likely not be recognizable in 5 to 10 years. The Oregon brand should Oregon decide to participate in the 'brave new world' will not be left behind.

 

As a practical matter, the issue is moot before Oregon receives an invitation to join the B1G which I do not see happening for 5 to 6 years. You need an invitation to attend the Ball. 

Edited June 27, 2023 by Jon Joseph

[Charles Fischer]

On 6/27/2023 at 11:57 AM, Jon Joseph said:

...when it comes to championships the B1G money hasn't brought B1G teams close to competing for championships like SEC teams. And the lower half of the SEC does not compete for NCAA and football playoff titles. Plus, who will be the beneficiary of more media money? Certainly not the young men and women playing non-revenue sports.

[kirklandduck]

One thing that's interesting to think about is the equipment logistics.  All the football team's stuff is carted by long haul trucks to the visitor destination (at least for Oregon).  Within the Pac12 foot print currently, all those away games can be reached within 3 days or so. 

 

But to do that as a member of the Big10?  What a nightmare to calculate those costs to move all that equipment to Columbus, Maryland, etc., especially for back to back road games.  A team would have to double or triple their equipment to make sure there's a set ready to go for the team when they get to each destination.

[David Marsh]

On 6/27/2023 at 3:05 PM, kirklandduck said:

But to do that as a member of the Big10?  What a nightmare to calculate those costs to move all that equipment to Columbus, Maryland, etc., especially for back to back road games.  A team would have to double or triple their equipment to make sure there's a set ready to go for the team when they get to each destination.

The equipment side of things would be insane. 

 

I would imagine they may need to get a warehouse of storage location in B1G territory to store some stuff. 

 

The jersies themselves aren't a big deal but all that other fear is too much to fly. 

 

Regardless.. factor that into the additional costs. 

[NJDuck]

On 6/27/2023 at 12:12 PM, Jon Joseph said:

A timely take on this subject from Matt Hayes. This time from the B1G site Saturday Traditions. Hayes notes that the B1G will not author the destruction of the Pac-10 (Right?) and cautions that media dollars may not be in place to fund further expansion. Spot on in regards to media money.

 

Hayes has 5 Pac-10 schools as potential B1G additions: Cal, Oregon, Stanford, and UW are on every potential expansion list I have seen but Utah is a new candidate. I think CU would be in the running ahead of Utah.

What's interesting in this article is this:

 

"The difference with expansion this time around — opposed to expansion of a decade ago — is television market. When the Big Ten added Rutgers and Maryland, the big draw was the New York City and Washington D.C./Northern Virginia television markets.

 

This time around, it’s all about properties and football potential. Television markets aren’t as important because of streaming platforms and viewership moving away from cable.

 

More than anything, it’s about the new Playoff that begins in 2024 — a 12-team format built to benefit those conferences who can qualify the most teams. The distribution specifics for the estimated $1.5 billion annual payout are stilling being negotiated, but it will likely be a system based on units.

 

The more teams in the Playoff (and the more wins), the more units (see: money) earned.

 

Translation: the Big Ten wants football-playing schools with a strong history and investment (facility and academic) in the sport. That leaves a specific group of schools on the radar."

 

If I am looking at this correctly, what he is saying, next time around a school will not be determined their worth and or limited to the city media market size.  Rightfully so!

 

What I underlined above are the reasons Oregon will no longer be limited by the Portland media market alone for its value.

 

[Jon Joseph]

Hats off to David! This article was posted on Yardbarker. HUZZAH!

[Jon Joseph]

What a bunch of BS!

 

This could only come from an Ohio State fan whose school made the Final 4 twice even though it did not win its conference title. Of course, the 2024 regular season will be important. 4 conference champions will get the top 4 seeds (I expect this will likely change in 2026 when I expect the playoff to go to 16 teams; follow the money) and a first-round bye. 

 

And your record and hopefully, SOS will be paramount in being rewarded with one of the 6 at-large slots and finishing seeded 5-8 so you can host a 1st round playoff game.

 

Schools outside of the P5 do win CBB trophies, unlike B1G schools, and look at what Oral Roberts just did (sigh) in the baseball tournament. There will be upsets coming with playoff expansion. 

 

Ohio State Football: The last year of a relevant regular season

SCARLETANDGAME.COM

---

There have been a lot of memorable Ohio State football seasons in years past. Most of them stand out because the Buckeyes had an...

 

These B1G wonks are undeservedly full of themselves and boring.

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/28/2023 at 1:39 PM, WoadBlue said:

It's not even just the SEC. Since 1970, the assumed basketball-league ACC has won 7 National Championships in football, and the much richer BT, with many more huge football stadiums and the nation's CFB mouthpieces slobbering all over it, has won 3. 

 

6 of the ACC's are from the 1990s until now. How many Pac National Championships in football have we seen back to 1990? 

 

And the ACC numbers do not include Miami, which has not won even 1 league title since joining the ACC. 

The ACC or a member or two of the ACC won football titles playing in a conference while having huge roster advantages. For the ACC to stay at 8 conference games with no divisions so Notre Dame among other reasons can stay independent is in my opinion chicken spit. Yeah, Louisville plays Kentucky, FSU plays Florida, Georgia Tech plays Georgia and Clemson plays South Carolina as does UNC this season, but the overall OOC slate in the ACC is a visit to a cupcake factory, and after Clemson, FSU, and UNC how tough is the in-conference competition now that VA Tech is way down, NC State has never won a football title and Miami is far from making a comeback.

 

Make no mistake. I respect the ACC and I would love to see a merger of the Pac-10 (maybe 12) with the ACC to form the Coast-to-Coast Conference with Atlantic and Pacific divisions. This Power 4 conference would easily win the P4 bronze. 

 

So happy to have you on this board. Ohio State vs UGA was the best postseason game last season but UNC/Oregon has to be in the running for 2nd place.

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/28/2023 at 1:39 PM, WoadBlue said:

It's not even just the SEC. Since 1970, the assumed basketball-league ACC has won 7 National Championships in football, and the much richer BT, with many more huge football stadiums and the nation's CFB mouthpieces slobbering all over it, has won 3. 

 

6 of the ACC's are from the 1990s until now. How many Pac National Championships in football have we seen back to 1990? 

 

And the ACC numbers do not include Miami, which has not won even 1 league title since joining the ACC. 

1 more thought. No school that won a BCS and playoff title had other than a blue-chip roster. including Clemson and FSU from the ACC and no school that played 9 conference games has won a football playoff title. The year Ohio State won the B1G played 8 regular season games. 

 

I do not believe that Miami was in the ACC when it won its BCS titles. 

[Jon Joseph]

Matt Hayes. Matt, proofread much? This is the 2023 season so no Pac-12 team is going to the playoff based upon 2022 on-field results. Another chicken-little article: If Oregon and UW don't go to the B1G for a lesser share all is lost. Oh no!

 

And the USC and UCLA spokespersons talking about the improved level of play in the B1G? This is not the era of Minnesota winning back-to-back college football titles. Oregon State has won two CWS titles in a time frame when the B1G won zip and like in 2022, put next to no teams in the huge CWS field. And how has all the over-ranking that leads to numerous B1G teams being invited to the CBB tournament every season worked out? 

 

This is a money move period. A move funded on the backs of the LA school's athletes.  As to more publicity? That publicity has certainly helped Rutgers, Maryland and Northwestern finish at the top in CFB recruiting and Nebraska is the football power that it was in the Big 12, right?

 

Hayes: For Washington and Oregon, 2023 crucial not just for now but as springboard to a brighter (Big Ten?) future

SATURDAYOUTWEST.COM

---

There’s a moment in early November where they can take a stand. Where the drama of the last year comes directly into focus. But...

 

This just in. More money does not ipso facto improve the quality of life. Good luck to UCLA and USC volleyball players flying into Piscataway, New Jersey in February. Although I am certain that this game will be covered on the front page of the New York Times sports section.

[Charles Fischer]

Jon, you are so right about this article.  “Prove it versus USC?”

 

We already have for 20 years!

 

This is the time of year, when the writers have very little to write about, and they come up with a lot of crap as we have seen in the past couple of weeks.

[David Marsh]

On 6/30/2023 at 8:26 AM, Jon Joseph said:

Matt Hayes. Matt, proofread much? This is the 2023 season so no Pac-12 team is going to the playoff based upon 2022 on-field results. Another chicken-little article: If Oregon and UW don't go to the B1G for a lesser share all is lost. Oh no!

 

And the USC and UCLA spokespersons talking about the improved level of play in the B1G? This is not the era of Minnesota winning back-to-back college football titles. Oregon State has won two CWS titles in a time frame when the B1G won zip and like in 2022, put next to no teams in the huge CWS field. And how has all the over-ranking that leads to numerous B1G teams being invited to the CBB tournament every season worked out? 

 

This is a money move period. A move funded on the backs of the LA school's athletes.  As to more publicity? That publicity has certainly helped Rutgers, Maryland and Northwestern finish at the top in CFB recruiting and Nebraska is the football power that it was in the Big 12, right?

 

Hayes: For Washington and Oregon, 2023 crucial not just for now but as springboard to a brighter (Big Ten?) future

SATURDAYOUTWEST.COM

---

There’s a moment in early November where they can take a stand. Where the drama of the last year comes directly into focus. But...

 

This just in. More money does not ipso facto improve the quality of life. Good luck to UCLA and USC volleyball players flying into Piscataway, New Jersey in February. Although I am certain that this game will be covered on the front page of the New York Times sports section.

 

The only argument I feel that holds water for Oregon and Washington to join the B1G and leave the Pac is for the prestige. This assumes that the B1G is a more prestigious conference with better competition. If that is the line of reasoning someone wants to believe then sure, by that logic Oregon and Washington should join the B1G.

 

But this argument that teams need to be good to get into the B1G is laughable because how many division (not conference, division) titles have Rutgers and Maryland won since they joined the B1G? How many did they win in their previous conferences? I don't know the answer to that second question but I am pretty sure very few.

 

In the same vein since 2010 guess how many Pac-12 Championships have USC and UCLA won combined? It's ONE! 

 

Same time frame Oregon has won FIVE (2010 was in the Pac-10). Washington has won two. 

 

The strength of athletic programs doesn't matter to conference expansion. 

 

Thanks for the article post Jon. 

[Charles Fischer]

On 6/30/2023 at 11:38 AM, David Marsh said:

The only argument I feel that holds water for Oregon and Washington to join the B1G and leave the Pac is for the prestige.

Prestige?  Well, the first four are good, but after that?  That is a big conference, but not a strong one--as Jon has pointed out with their post-season results over the last 20 years.  They have media markets, but eventually the metric will be the audience size...perhaps in five years?

 

Big Ten
Ohio State Buckeyes
Michigan Wolverines
Penn State Nittany Lions
USC Trojans

 

Wisconsin Badgers
Iowa Hawkeyes
UCLA Bruins
Illinois Fighting Illini
Indiana Hoosiers
Maryland Terrapins
Michigan State Spartans
Minnesota Golden Gophers
Nebraska Cornhuskers
Northwestern Wildcats
Purdue Boilermakers
Rutgers Scarlet Knights

 

[David Marsh]

On 6/30/2023 at 12:29 PM, Charles Fischer said:

Prestige?  Well, the first four are good, but after that?  That is a big conference, but not a strong one--as Jon has pointed out with their post-season results over the last 20 years.  They have media markets, but eventually the metric will be the audience size...perhaps in five years?

 

Big Ten
Ohio State Buckeyes
Michigan Wolverines
Penn State Nittany Lions
USC Trojans

 

Wisconsin Badgers
Iowa Hawkeyes
UCLA Bruins
Illinois Fighting Illini
Indiana Hoosiers
Maryland Terrapins
Michigan State Spartans
Minnesota Golden Gophers
Nebraska Cornhuskers
Northwestern Wildcats
Purdue Boilermakers
Rutgers Scarlet Knights

 

Prestige is also subjective. 

 

I don't see the prestige of going to the B1G and I feel the PAC has its own prestige. 

 

Though some people just want to join the B1G to be relevant which is the prestige argument... It varies from person to person. A lot of those pundits push the B1G and tre SEC for the prestige..  or at least their perception of prestige. 

 

Oregon just needs to win a national championship and get them all to shut up a bit. 

 

The prestige argument can be debated... The money argument really can't, once we get actual numbers in a few years, because UCLA (out test case) will either make money or they won't (probably won't) but saying they are in aore prestigious conference... That can be argued (though I disagree). 

[Charles Fischer]

On 6/30/2023 at 1:58 PM, David Marsh said:

Oregon just needs to win a national championship and get them all to shut up a bit. 

AMEN Duck Brother.

 

When Clemson won 'Nattys in a weak ACC...nobody cared about their conference because the Tigers had great teams who beat the best in the Playoffs. 

 

In the end, the prestige of the conference does not matter; all the matters is Our Beloved Ducks!

 

[Jon Joseph]

Great call. And Clemson followed FSU in having a superior roster to other ACC members.

 

Remember that undefeated FSU team out of the ACC that Oregon played in the Rose Bowl? According to Jameis, the game was close. Right?

[Thomallister1291]

As time goes on, I'm realizing that Oregon staying in the Pac-12 can actually help them a bit at some points like being the Clemson of the west, hopefully Oregon's final decision helps them in the natty goal!