Big 10 Expansion Thread -Big Ten ready for a playoff .. finally?

[Butter]

Longhorn Network is the perfect platform to convert to a Nationwide Pac-12 Network instead of whatever bullshit they are doing now.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Butter

Longhorn Network is the perfect platform to convert to a Nationwide Pac-12 Network instead of whatever bullshit they are doing now.

The issue is that DirecTV and Charter don't value Pac-12 viewership as highly as they do with other conferences, and they've thus far refused to meet the Pac-12's asking price. It didn't help that the Pac-12 failed to ensure that Comcast would guarantee nationwide distribution, or that they didn't retain digital distribution rights so they could put more competitive pressure on those two carriers. And so far the Pac-12 has refused to drop their pricing to get DirecTV and Charter on-board.

You could blame Larry Scott for miscalculating, but the more fundamental issue is that Pac-12 fans simply aren't as desirable a viewership market as those for the B1G or SEC (or even arguably the Big-12 and ACC). The conference is trying to broaden their base by marketing to Asia, but that's a long-term strategy. And you could certainly argue that taking a dip in carriage fees with Comcast, Dish, etc. in order to get DirecTV and Charter on-board would be worth it in order to get the content out there in the hopes of driving up interest in the product.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

For the PAC 12 specifically - Is Boise More attractive?

This may sound crazy but if that Raiders Stadium actually happens, UNLV would probably by higher on the list. The PAC already has it's conference tourney here and ties to the Bowl game. I think they'd finally sell out and consider the metro area for Vegas as a TV footprint (think we're 10th biggest in the west). About all you get from Boise is another market the size of Utah that can only play one sport. Isn't Boise St's stadium like 35k?

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The issue is that DirecTV and Charter don't value Pac-12 viewership as highly as they do with other conferences, and they've thus far refused to meet the Pac-12's asking price. It didn't help that the Pac-12 failed to ensure that Comcast would guarantee nationwide distribution, or that they didn't retain digital distribution rights so they could put more competitive pressure on those two carriers. And so far the Pac-12 has refused to drop their pricing to get DirecTV and Charter on-board.

You could blame Larry Scott for miscalculating, but the more fundamental issue is that Pac-12 fans simply aren't as desirable a viewership market as those for the B1G or SEC (or even arguably the Big-12 and ACC). The conference is trying to broaden their base by marketing to Asia, but that's a long-term strategy. And you could certainly argue that taking a dip in carriage fees with Comcast, Dish, etc. in order to get DirecTV and Charter on-board would be worth it in order to get the content out there in the hopes of driving up interest in the product.

This is why I have 15 different versions of the Pac-(insert town) channel on my Century Link Prism feed?

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

This is why I have 15 different versions of the Pac-(insert town) channel on my Century Link Prism feed?

The way they do it is there's the main channel - the Pac-12 Network - and then there are six location-specific feeds that focus their content on the two schools in that footprint:

- Pac-12 Washington (UW & WSU)
- Pac-12 Oregon (Oregon & Oregon State)
- Pac-12 Arizona (Arizona & ASU)
- Pac-12 Bay Area (Cal & Stanford)
- Pac-12 Los Angeles (USC & UCLA)
- Pac-12 Mountain (Utah & Colorado)

And on top of that there are likely SD and HD versions of each feed.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by bronconick

The football schools screamed to high heaven about UConn over Louisville and if UConn had won that vote, said football schools would have put feelers out to the Big XII and what not. I don't see UConn being admitted anytime soon.

There's also UConn's lack of attendance - well under 30,000 per game the last few years. Just like Syracuse and BC are also a big drag on the ACC attendance and viewership numbers. The real mistake was thinking BC would grow and ever capture a significant part of the Boston market, but if I were the ACC I would be looking west, with UConn as an acceptable and unexciting C level fallback option that will always be on the table.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

There's also UConn's lack of attendance - well under 30,000 per game the last few years. Just like Syracuse and BC are also a big drag on the ACC attendance and viewership numbers. The real mistake was thinking BC would grow and ever capture a significant part of the Boston market, but if I were the ACC I would be looking west, with UConn as an acceptable and unexciting C level fallback option that will always be on the table.

as long as Duke and Wake are charter members football attendance cant even be a discussion point.

[tarcone]

I could see Texas and Kansas landing in the B1G.
OU seems destined for the SEC and I believe they take OSU with them. Isnt that a state law?
ND is destined for the ACC. I dont understand why the B1G and ND could never get together.
No way the B1G takes ISU. Why would they take the 2nd team in a really small state? ISU goes to the MAC or the MVC.

This is getting interesting.

[Butter]

I would have to think if Notre Dame joins the ACC as part of this, that West Virginia joins with them as the Big XII implodes. They just make too much sense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

as long as Duke and Wake are charter members football attendance cant even be a discussion point.

Pretty much truth. UConn outdrew both by a couple thousand people/game last season.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by tarcone

No way the B1G takes ISU. Why would they take the 2nd team in a really small state? ISU goes to the MAC or the MVC.

Kick out Iowa

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

as long as Duke and Wake are charter members football attendance cant even be a discussion point.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Pretty much truth. UConn outdrew both by a couple thousand people/game last season.

And would Wake Forest even be considered by any P5 conference if they were currently in the AAC or CUSA? (I do realize that Duke is the better comparison for UConn with the basketball success.) The standards for kicking out a team are much different than the ones for inviting new schools in to get a slice of the pie.

[dawgfan]

I have my doubts at this point that the Pac-12 will expand. The conference can't compete with the B1G and SEC in terms of TV contract money, so it's hard to imagine Texas or Oklahoma heading west. And there's no reason for the conference to expand unless doing so raises revenue for all schools. I would bet that only those two schools can do that.

Unless the Pac-12 is the only conference that would be able to work out a deal with Texas that they and the conference can accept, I'd bet on the Big-12 remaining as-is, or the Longhorns finding a home in the B1G.

What would change that is a landscape where the conference was required to be at 16 members, but I think that's mainly a dream of fans that like the symmetry of four big super-conferences and not so much the desire of the schools, conferences and TV networks.

[tarcone]

Originally Posted by lungs

Kick out Iowa

Then who would Wiscy lose too?

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by lungs

Kick out Iowa

or just have the Iowa/Iowa State game early in the year decide who gets the conference affiliation that year.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

but the more fundamental issue is that Pac-12 fans simply aren't as desirable a viewership market as those for the B1G or SEC (or even arguably the Big-12 and ACC).

I'm virtually certain I get what you're saying here, but I suspect somewhere along the way somebody won't.

It's not, IMO, that the Pac 12 viewers aren't as desirable nearly so much is that there simply aren't as many of them. It's likely not believed to be as loyal an audience, nor one that would be as emotionally tied to the product (or by extension the advertisers) but there's nothing inherently 'wrong" with Pac 12 viewers or anything of that sort that I know of. If the body count was there, it'd overcome a lot of advertiser objections easily enough IMO.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm virtually certain I get what you're saying here, but I suspect somewhere along the way somebody won't.

It's not, IMO, that the Pac 12 viewers aren't as desirable nearly so much is that there simply aren't as many of them. It's likely not believed to be as loyal an audience, nor one that would be as emotionally tied to the product (or by extension the advertisers) but there's nothing inherently 'wrong" with Pac 12 viewers or anything of that sort that I know of. If the body count was there, it'd overcome a lot of advertiser objections easily enough IMO.

Yep, exactly. I'm sure on a per-person basis Pac-12 fans are actually a highly desirable advertising demographic, but there just aren't as many of us tuning in consistently as with the SEC and B1G. There are absolutely some insanely devoted fans of each school that would compare with the craziest SEC fans, but on average we just aren't as passionate.

Case in point - not one of our stadiums as at 100K capacity. Closest are the L.A. Coliseum and the Rose Bowl (93K and 92K respectively), but neither come close to selling out on a regular basis and the Coliseum will lose some seats once USC renovates it (capacity will drop to 77.5K). Compare attendance between the SEC, B1G and Pac-12 and it's not really close - the other two kick our butts.

I don't know what it is - perhaps there's stronger competition for our entertainment time and money in the Pac-12 footprint, maybe there's just something inherently different in west coast culture that doesn't put the same level of fanaticism about CFB - but the numbers just aren't there. Which is a shame, because the product is outstanding. Perhaps as the demographics of the country change and the west gains in population relative to the B1G footprint we'll see things shift.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Wait, so the B12 mishandled something? Shocking.

Dana O'Neil
ESPN Senior Writer

Houston's Kelvin Sampson said the Big 12 expansion chatter turned into an "avalanche" after Cougars beat Oklahoma, and a constant question on the recruiting trail. He added that while no one can tell a league how to run their business, he wishes it had been handled differently.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Wait, so the B12 mishandled something? Shocking.

This one's not even a B. Gonna go with a Gentleman's C for you here.

[BishopMVP]

But A+ for the irony of asking Kelvin Sampson if Oklahoma's administration didn't handle something correctly!

[Logan]

In an attempt to continue it's remarkable streak of bad decision making B12 announces FB championship game will be 1 vs 2. No divisions.

— Eddie Radosevich (@Eddie_Rado) October 28, 2016

[ISiddiqui]

Good God Almighty.

[HomerSimpson98]

then the winner of that game plays Texas for the Super B12 Championship the following week. Televised exclusively on LHN of course.

[murrayyyyy]

Even better since it was a 7-3 vote to break up into 2 divisions.

One true champion!

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by murrayyyyy

Even better since it was a 7-3 vote to break up into 2 divisions.

One true champion!

I see where that was a 7-3 vote among football coaches, so I'm guessing that either ADs or Presidents overruled them?

[cartman]

Yeah, that would have been a decision of the school presidents.

Since they didn't expand, it didn't really make sense to split up into divisions.

[murrayyyyy]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, that would have been a decision of the school presidents.

Since they didn't expand, it didn't really make sense to split up into divisions.

But it makes sense to put your #1 school at risk? Not buying it. Wouldn't school presidents be against a title game?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Yeah, that would have been a decision of the school presidents.

Since they didn't expand, it didn't really make sense to split up into divisions.

But without splitting into divisions then this "championship game" doesn't really make much sense either.

Just wait, given how things go & all, they'll have someone win the conference regular season by two full games ... and then lose in the "championship".

[cartman]

I don't disagree. The only reason I see for them doing a championship game is for the $25+ million it will generate.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by cartman

I don't disagree. The only reason I see for them doing a championship game is for the $25+ million it will generate.

Theoretically it would help with getting bids into the CFP too, right? Adds another difficult game to the resume of the B12 champ...

[cartman]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Theoretically it would help with getting bids into the CFP too, right? Adds another difficult game to the resume of the B12 champ...

In theory, yes. But since the game would be a rematch, I don't think it would be viewed quite the same.

[Butter]

Big 12 is already well on its way to getting shut out of the playoff for the 2nd time in 3 years. They have to do something. I guess this is better than nothing.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by cartman

In theory, yes. But since the game would be a rematch, I don't think it would be viewed quite the same.

True, although in a lot of cases other championship games end up being rematches as well.

[Logan]

Good reminder:

The old Big 12 Championship ruined plenty of national title contenders. Why bring it back? - SBNation.com

[cartman]

Just read something else that made a lot of sense. If they went to divisions and no round robin starting next season or the year after, then for the first several years they would have a lot of difficulty scheduling a decent out of conference opponent for the new open week, since most Power 5 teams have their schedules set until at least 2020.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

True, although in a lot of cases other championship games end up being rematches as well.

Really its just the Pac 12 and VT

Since 2005 (10 years)
SEC - 1 time (2010)
ACC - 4 times (07, 08 (VT both times), 09, 11 (VT)
B1G - 2 (11,12)
Pac 12 - Every year (5 for 5)

[Logan]

B1G announces they're going to begin playing six Friday night games a year starting next season.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Logan

B1G announces they're going to begin playing six Friday night games a year starting next season.

Can't wait for those Purdue/Maryland & Rutgers/Illinois matchups! Though seriously, I do wonder if they'll try to stick a marquee team playing a mid-pack team on those nights. With Harbaugh & Meyer there I could actually see those schools agreeing to play (other teams, not the Big Game) on a Friday night, at least for an away game.

[tarcone]

Iowa-Nebraska is already on a Friday.

All of them will play it. I wonder if its a good move. High School football and all.

[ISiddiqui]

On the other hand, high school football isn't all that big up North (at least in my experience).

[Logan]

ACC is playing 5 Fridays this year already along with 4 Thursdays. I don't think it's a very big deal and is surely part of the reason the TV payouts keep going up.

Having two of the six games be Friday of Labor Day and Thanksgiving weekends help.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Can't wait for those Purdue/Maryland & Rutgers/Illinois matchups! Though seriously, I do wonder if they'll try to stick a marquee team playing a mid-pack team on those nights. With Harbaugh & Meyer there I could actually see those schools agreeing to play (other teams, not the Big Game) on a Friday night, at least for an away game.

Michigan has already said that it will not be participating in the Friday night games.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

On the other hand, high school football isn't all that big up North (at least in my experience).

Ever been to Ohio

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by Logan

ACC is playing 5 Fridays this year already along with 4 Thursdays. I don't think it's a very big deal and is surely part of the reason the TV payouts keep going up.

Having two of the six games be Friday of Labor Day and Thanksgiving weekends help.

Yep an as part of the deal Clemson and FSU will never host one.
Horrible horrible change.

Hate Friday night college games.

Such a disadvantage to the program. Recruits can't visit, coached can't recruit.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

Ever been to Ohio

Or Pennsylvania.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Or Pennsylvania.

I haven't been been to ohio/Penn high school football games.

Are there many 10k fan draws?

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

Michigan has already said that it will not be participating in the Friday night games.

And OSU and Wiscy said they won't give up a home game.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I haven't been been to ohio/Penn high school football games.

Are there many 10k fan draws?

Hey digamma, where did you put the dick-measuring thread again?

[JonInMiddleGA]

First thing I thought of was how unpopular that Fri night stuff would be in OH & PA

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I haven't been been to ohio/Penn high school football games.

Are there many 10k fan draws?

I live in Texas now but I'm guessing the big schools like Massillon, St. X, and Ignatius still average more than 10,000 per game.

It isnt just the big schools though. My wife's hometown High School stadium is larger than the town population yet they manage to fill it up most games. There may be more passionate high school football fans in Texas but Ohio isn't far behind.