calumnus said:
Strykur said:
Pittstop said:
What if the 2 added schools received less than full shares, like say, $20M each (which is likely way more than SD State currently gets). Then, the other OG Pac schools would still get like $31M each, right. Would something like that be a viable option? Or, even at $25M each for the new schools, wouldn't that net the OG schools $30M or so?
The issue here is that the San Diego market would on paper be a material element of any new deal, and to stiff San Diego State on their share would be a bit hypocritical in that regard (SMU given how small they are is a different story). Oregon State and Washington State getting more money than San Diego State in a new PAC-12 would be bizarre.
If San Diego State brings in more money in the media deal than a full share, they will get a full share. The discussion was, what if they are dilutive? What if they bring in less? Then they will get less than a full share so the are accretive. The MWC pays out $5 million, so San Diego State can't care about Oregon State and Washington State.
The same goes for B1G admission. If Cal and Stanford do not bring in enough additional revenue for a full share, we should go in for something less as long as it is significantly more than the PAC-10 payout. We can't care about the "unfairness" of Iowa getting a full share. Membership has its privileges.
This analysis is essentially correct but there are a few nuances regarding the past fifteen years of Big Ten expansion.
Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers were immediately additive (i.e., brought in more funds than the previous share per school); Nebraska through the creation of the Big Ten Championship Game (initially valued at $25M, which was more than the media share per school) and in television ratings (even given their recent pathetic gridiron performance, and having the smallest state population, by far, in the Big Ten, their rabid fan base produces ratings in the top half of the conference), while the increase in the BTN fees alone from Rutgers and Maryland covered the cost of their additions. The reduced payments were enforced because:
1. All conference schools are owners of the BTN, and it was quite reasonable at that time that the previous members be compensated for the financial risk they undertook; the three schools purchased, over a number of years, equity in the business.
2. The conference had enormous leverage over each of the schools. Despite the popular view that Nebraska fled the Big XII for financial reasons, the true cause was absolute panic of relegation to the MWC; when the 2010 PAC raid came to light, and Texas refused to sign a GoR at the June conference meeting, Nebraska pleaded for a life raft from the Big Ten, which quickly obliged. Maryland's athletic department was under serious financial strain, and Rutgers would probably have joined for a media share of $1/year for five years.
USC and UCLA negotiated from a position of far greater strength than the previous three, and were able to obtain a full share upon joining the conference.
Given the current membership of the Big Ten and the slow demise of the bundled cable funding model, the only three schools that I can envision being clearly financially additive in the long run, that the Big Ten would admit, are Notre Dame, North Carolina, and Florida State (yes, the Seminoles are not AAU, but it is only a [short] matter of time).
I suspect that Cal and Stanford would accept payments of $40M/year for the length of the current contract from the Big Ten, which would either keep the current membership whole and perhaps even increase the value of their shares, but no conference can survive with such a permanent class structure; to receive an invitation the Big Ten must be convinced that starting in 2030 the presence of the schools will not dilute to a meaningful extent the payments for the current membership. The path to an invitation is challenging, but it is possible, depending upon the attitudes of USC and UCLA.
Now that the football schedules for 2024 and 2025 have been published, the travel requirements have become real and no longer abstract (and wait until they deal with the other sports!). While I can see where USC and UCLA might relish their positions as the only two western schools in a "Big Boy League" and the recruiting advantages it bestows, I find it difficult to believe that they will be satisfied with the disadvantage they have been placed compared to their conference comrades because of travel. I do not wish the following sentence to be taken as disrespectful, but if I was the athletic director at either school I would far prefer to have Cal and Stanford in the conference than Oregon and Washington. The presence of Cal and Stanford would not only make scheduling easier, it would address the November prime time broadcast uproar that has afflicted the conference in the last month, and would make a "Big Ten After Dark" slot (an entirely new addition to the media contract) feasible. This time would obviously be covered by the California schools, and would receive decent ratings if the brands in the central time zone (Wisconsin, Iowa, Nebraska) were involved. (I doubt that Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State would ever agree to this assignment.)
I do believe that there is a decent case to be made for Stanford and Cal to join the Big Ten. If the administrations of the two schools are proactive, and can enlist the strong support of UCLA and USC on their behalf, an invitation is not beyond the realm of possibility.
