Perspective from the Big Ten and some much needed clarifications

[cymonw1980]

for

I think we have to *HOPE* that when the b10 adds the top AAU schools from the PAC that somehow, some way we get in too. I think you are right... more likely scenario *RIGHT NOW* is big 10 adds exclusively from the top 9 AAU schools in the pac (all pac except asu, wsu, osu are AAU). But I do think if we can perform well and continue to grow ticket sales (projected to be over $20M for the first time in our athletics budget for FY22), and donations we would have a strong case to compete depending on number added. The most frustrating part of this is that we have a lot of momentum right now. If this was delayed even 5 yrs we could be in a very different position... I was really hoping we would have until the end of the LHN deal so that we could continue on our current trajectory and be in an even better position.

ISU is #8 in the P5 in revenue growth from 2005-2019. Ticket sales is a key detractor where we were #20 in growth but that likely picks up significantly in the next few years if Campbell stays around (remember this is revenue not just qty... so, revenue could continue to grow even if we stay at 61.5k capacity for the next few years).

View attachment 87719

NOTE that Utah, while a P5 tam now, was in the MW in 2005 which helps explain their growth. Louisville and WV went from the big east to the ACC, B12 respectively. The Mississippi schools are fascinating cases... I honestly do not know what is driving such significant growth... Mississippi St. was one of the lowest budget schools in all of the in 2005 (they were #52 of 52 public schools included the 2005 rankings); in 2019 they had moved up to #30.

forgot to mention... if ISU is in a PAC/B12 remaining member league it is likely teams like OSU, ASU, Ari, WSU, Utah, maybe Col. All of these are nice schools to go with 8 nice pieces from the B12. But none of them are among the top brands in the sport. So, it will be hard to put this league in the "power" leagues and the revenue will still be way behind (the top leagues will be making huge dollars - I would guess in the $80M-$90M range). That is why it is so important to get to a real power league. If B10 takes 4-6 schools from the PAC we are down to 3 "power" conferences. With ACC likely just hanging around until we get closer to the end of the GoR or until they find a way to break it sooner...

 

[AlumfromAmes]

for


forgot to mention... if ISU is in a PAC/B12 remaining member league it is likely teams like OSU, ASU, Ari, WSU, Utah, maybe Col. All of these are nice schools to go with 8 nice pieces from the B12. But none of them are among the top brands in the sport. So, it will be hard to put this league in the "power" leagues and the revenue will still be way behind (the top leagues will be making huge dollars - I would guess in the $80M-$90M range). That is why it is so important to get to a real power league. If B10 takes 4-6 schools from the PAC we are down to 3 "power" conferences. With ACC likely just hanging around until we get closer to the end of the GoR or until they find a way to break it sooner...

The Big Ten making a run at the top programs in the PAC makes a little sense, but they don’t need Washington, Cal, or maybe even Oregon. Plus, they’ve whiffed on some of their past pickups. IMHO they’d really only get excited about USC or UCLA. Maybe they’d take up to four if it has to be a package deal. Even then, do those schools get excited about a conference that stretches all the way to the opposite end of the country with only four teams in their time zone?

PLUS, the other PAC teams are probably a bit nervous right now and putting pressure on the conference to consider expansion and a bigger media deal. They surely don’t want to lose their top money programs. They’re focused on expansion and solidification.

Bottom line: The PAC is looking at preservation and the Big Ten can afford to wait for the best deal. I think the PAC moves first by adding from the Big XII. If the Big Ten comes calling after that, ISU and KU would leave the PAC.

 

[RustShack]

The Big Ten making a run at the top programs in the PAC makes a little sense, but they don’t need Washington, Cal, or maybe even Oregon. Plus, they’ve whiffed on some of their past pickups. IMHO they’d really only get excited about USC or UCLA. Maybe they’d take up to four if it has to be a package deal. Even then, do those schools get excited about a conference that stretches all the way to the opposite end of the country with only four teams in their time zone?

PLUS, the other PAC teams are probably a bit nervous right now and putting pressure on the conference to consider expansion and a bigger media deal. They surely don’t want to lose their top money programs. They’re focused on expansion and solidification.

Bottom line: The PAC is looking at preservation and the Big Ten can afford to wait for the best deal. I think the PAC moves first by adding from the Big XII. If the Big Ten comes calling after that, ISU and KU would leave the PAC.

The B1G would have to come calling within the hour of a PAC invitation. We aren’t going to the PAC for a year then switching to the B1G lol.

 

[cymonw1980]

The Big Ten making a run at the top programs in the PAC makes a little sense, but they don’t need Washington, Cal, or maybe even Oregon. Plus, they’ve whiffed on some of their past pickups. IMHO they’d really only get excited about USC or UCLA. Maybe they’d take up to four if it has to be a package deal. Even then, do those schools get excited about a conference that stretches all the way to the opposite end of the country with only four teams in their time zone?

PLUS, the other PAC teams are probably a bit nervous right now and putting pressure on the conference to consider expansion and a bigger media deal. They surely don’t want to lose their top money programs. They’re focused on expansion and solidification.

Bottom line: The PAC is looking at preservation and the Big Ten can afford to wait for the best deal. I think the PAC moves first by adding from the Big XII. If the Big Ten comes calling after that, ISU and KU would leave the PAC.

so, if you look at brand value (rev, attendance, tv ratings), has to be USC, Washington, Oregon. Then if you need 4-6 you take UCLA, then maybe cal, Stanford if you need a west coast contingent to get usc/wash/ore. This is not about wins/losses… it’s about brands and eyeballs on tv.

this is not about what makes sense geographically or with rivalries. If it continues to be based on what is best for the bottom line pac can’t compete with big10. Has not for decades, no logical path for them to get there.

 

[BCClone]

so, if you look at brand value (rev, attendance, tv ratings), has to be USC, Washington, Oregon. Then if you need 4-6 you take UCLA, then maybe cal, Stanford if you need a west coast contingent to get usc/wash/ore. This is not about wins/losses… it’s about brands and eyeballs on tv.

this is not about what makes sense geographically or with rivalries. If it continues to be based on what is best for the bottom line pac can’t compete with big10. Has not for decades, no logical path for them to get there.

Stanford as the fourth, UCLA and Cal would be a joint deal IMO. Besides, their quirks could cause issues.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Do you see any issues with the Cali schools and their boycott on certain states (Iowa is one of 20 or so) states that they are not allowed to use public funds for travel? It would make the state schools a difficult sell if they have to travel to those states more than once a year or so.

Sorry this took me so long to respond to, work is a touch insane at the moment. The boycott is only for government funds being used for travel. You can just use the media money to cover travel expenses and adjust your funding internally.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Where do you get this info from? Are you basing it off of each school endowment size because that doesn’t necessarily equate to donating to the Athletics Department.
My perception is that SEC donors would give all of their money to AD versus schools’ endowment.

This is a great point and honestly I don't have any more concrete info then word of mouth. It is something that I have heard for so long from so many people high up at big ten schools that I just accepted it as fact. Appreciate the introspection

 

[Cloneon]

for


forgot to mention... if ISU is in a PAC/B12 remaining member league it is likely teams like OSU, ASU, Ari, WSU, Utah, maybe Col. All of these are nice schools to go with 8 nice pieces from the B12. But none of them are among the top brands in the sport. So, it will be hard to put this league in the "power" leagues and the revenue will still be way behind (the top leagues will be making huge dollars - I would guess in the $80M-$90M range). That is why it is so important to get to a real power league. If B10 takes 4-6 schools from the PAC we are down to 3 "power" conferences. With ACC likely just hanging around until we get closer to the end of the GoR or until they find a way to break it sooner...

Am I the only one who is sick of this 'brand' argument? B1G-OSU (Mich and Penn St haven't exactly been lighting it up lately), B12-OK(Texas hasn't exactly been lighting it up lately), and ACC-Clemson (FSU hasn't exactly been lighting it up lately) leaves a hell of a lot of schools on the same level. Any one of which can develop their own brand over time.

 

[DarkStar]

Sorry this took me so long to respond to, work is a touch insane at the moment. The boycott is only for government funds being used for travel. You can just use the media money to cover travel expenses and adjust your funding internally.

That would still make travel for joint research projects more difficult. Harder to build new relationships between new conference members to spawn new research ideas if you are limited in travel funding used to get to know each other.

At least to me, that still is one of the biggest bonuses that would come from joining either the B1G or Pac 12.

 

[DarkStar]

Am I the only one who is sick of this 'brand' argument? B1G-OSU (Mich and Penn St haven't exactly been lighting it up lately), B12-OK(Texas hasn't exactly been lighting it up lately), and ACC-Clemson (FSU hasn't exactly been lighting it up lately) leaves a hell of a lot of schools on the same level. Any one of which can develop their own brand over time.

Especially when last year the Oregon ISU Fiesta Bowl drew 1 million more tv viewers than the Oklahoma Florida Cotton Bowl.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Am I the only one who is sick of this 'brand' argument? B1G-OSU (Mich and Penn St haven't exactly been lighting it up lately), B12-OK(Texas hasn't exactly been lighting it up lately), and ACC-Clemson (FSU hasn't exactly been lighting it up lately) leaves a hell of a lot of schools on the same level. Any one of which can develop their own brand over time.

That’s what Clemson did. Before Dabo Clemson’s rep was being constantly overrated and falling short in any meaningful game. Now they get mentioned like they are a historical power. Brands are just something media entities push so casual fans have something to grab onto. Keep CMC and stay a top 25 team for a few more years and ISU will also be a “brand”

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Got a little more inside info from a couple big ten board members with direct AD access:

Big ten still doesn't feel in a rush to add members but discussions with USC have been had and it is looking like they will be added whenever they make a move. Question seems to be USC and one more team or USC and 5 more teams.

Kansas isn't in play but is very desperate with their awful football program and major basketball sanctions looming. They have been offering to take very little money in exchange for the security of the conference. Essentially keeping the money they are used to making in the big12 and forfeiting the extra media money back to the conference. Changes the math a big on how much value they add if they only want a small piece of the pie.

Biggest hurdle mentioned by AD's is the travel cost for non-revenue sports to possibly go out west and the large time zone changes effecting how athletes will perform. However the big ten office has said that they now believe their new media deal will be worth 80+mil a year which would obv offset the costs. Some schools want to see the terms of this become a little more real before adding schools out west but it doesn't seem to be a major hurdle.

It is believed that the Pac12 and Hateful 8 will combine once the big ten makes their selections. Depending on if the big ten grabs all 6 teams at once or if they grab 2 now and wait a bit will have a large impact on where ISU lands. Best case scenario for ISU is for the big ten to grab USC and Oregon now, keep winning and keep CMC for 2/3 more years and if you stay in they top 25 there would be a place in a 20 team big ten.

Obv things can change overnight and its possible I'm getting incomplete info but figured I got new insight so I should share.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Got a little more inside info from a couple big ten board members with direct AD access:

Big ten still doesn't feel in a rush to add members but discussions with USC have been had and it is looking like they will be added whenever they make a move. Question seems to be USC and one more team or USC and 5 more teams.

Kansas isn't in play but is very desperate with their awful football program and major basketball sanctions looming. They have been offering to take very little money in exchange for the security of the conference. Essentially keeping the money they are used to making in the big12 and forfeiting the extra media money back to the conference. Changes the math a big on how much value they add if they only want a small piece of the pie.

Biggest hurdle mentioned by AD's is the travel cost for non-revenue sports to possibly go out west and the large time zone changes effecting how athletes will perform. However the big ten office has said that they now believe their new media deal will be worth 80+mil a year which would obv offset the costs. Some schools want to see the terms of this become a little more real before adding schools out west but it doesn't seem to be a major hurdle.

It is believed that the Pac12 and Hateful 8 will combine once the big ten makes their selections. Depending on if the big ten grabs all 6 teams at once or if they grab 2 now and wait a bit will have a large impact on where ISU lands. Best case scenario for ISU is for the big ten to grab USC and Oregon now, keep winning and keep CMC for 2/3 more years and if you stay in they top 25 there would be a place in a 20 team big ten.

Obv things can change overnight and its possible I'm getting incomplete info but figured I got new insight so I should share.

The next round of TV contracts are going to lock teams in long term so IMO this is really starting to feel like the last big shift for quite some time. If the B1G adds USC they are going to add more pieces and be done. In this scenario I actually really like Iowa States chances of getting a B1G invite. With that being said, the likelihood of USC leaving the Pac isn't very high.

 

[FriendlySpartan]

The next round of TV contracts are going to lock teams in long term so IMO this is really starting to feel like the last big shift for quite some time. If the B1G adds USC they are going to add more pieces and be done. In this scenario I actually really like Iowa States chances of getting a B1G invite. With that being said, the likelihood of USC leaving the Pac isn't very high.

This is an excellent point. The last big ten media deal was for only 6 years, its why they are in an excellent position whereas the ACC is completely screwed. I am very interested to see if the new deal is for a similar 6ish years or is more of a decade thing. I have zero info on that but i would guess its more closer to a 5/6 year deal.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Setting aside the fact that an anonymous message board poster is unlikely to have real insight about anything this momentous, if the B1G actually did absorb the top half of the Pac-12 (which I think would require the California schools to be tied together along with Oregon and then Washington or Arizona), we're likely to see something like:

Merged Conference East:
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Baylor
West Virginia

Merged Conference West:
Texas Tech
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Utah
Washington State
Oregon State

 

[cyatheart]

Got a little more inside info from a couple big ten board members with direct AD access:

Big ten still doesn't feel in a rush to add members but discussions with USC have been had and it is looking like they will be added whenever they make a move. Question seems to be USC and one more team or USC and 5 more teams.

Kansas isn't in play but is very desperate with their awful football program and major basketball sanctions looming. They have been offering to take very little money in exchange for the security of the conference. Essentially keeping the money they are used to making in the big12 and forfeiting the extra media money back to the conference. Changes the math a big on how much value they add if they only want a small piece of the pie.

Biggest hurdle mentioned by AD's is the travel cost for non-revenue sports to possibly go out west and the large time zone changes effecting how athletes will perform. However the big ten office has said that they now believe their new media deal will be worth 80+mil a year which would obv offset the costs. Some schools want to see the terms of this become a little more real before adding schools out west but it doesn't seem to be a major hurdle.

It is believed that the Pac12 and Hateful 8 will combine once the big ten makes their selections. Depending on if the big ten grabs all 6 teams at once or if they grab 2 now and wait a bit will have a large impact on where ISU lands. Best case scenario for ISU is for the big ten to grab USC and Oregon now, keep winning and keep CMC for 2/3 more years and if you stay in they top 25 there would be a place in a 20 team big ten.

Obv things can change overnight and its possible I'm getting incomplete info but figured I got new insight so I should share.

thanks for the post, hard to imagine the big ten blowing up the pac 12 by taking 6 but anymore I guess it doesn’t matter

will be some good schools that get left out if they take 6, that 5th and 6th spot will be a war

figure usc, Oregon, wash, Colorado, Arizona and UCLA, Stanford and cal are desirable for the big ten….but that’s 8, who gets left out?

 

[FriendlySpartan]

thanks for the post, hard to imagine the big ten blowing up the pac 12 by taking 6 but anymore I guess it doesn’t matter

will be some good schools that get left out if they take 6, that 5th and 6th spot will be a war

figure usc, Oregon, wash, Colorado, Arizona and UCLA, Stanford and cal are desirable for the big ten….but that’s 8, who gets left out?

Cal for sure, then either Arizona or UCLA in that scenario. They could also add 4 and swoop up KU and ISU, especially if KU is willing to make major concessions

 

[FriendlySpartan]

Setting aside the fact that an anonymous message board poster is unlikely to have real insight about anything this momentous, if the B1G actually did absorb the top half of the Pac-12 (which I think would require the California schools to be tied together along with Oregon and then Washington or Arizona), we're likely to see something like:

Merged Conference East:
Iowa State
Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma State
TCU
Baylor
West Virginia

Merged Conference West:
Texas Tech
Arizona
Arizona State
Colorado
Utah
Washington State
Oregon State

Already explained where my info comes from, if you don’t believe me no skin off my back. But if you can point out where I have been wrong I would love to get updated info.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Already explained where my info comes from, if you don’t believe me no skin off my back. But if you can point out where I have been wrong I would love to get updated info.

Not calling you out specifically so much as the concept of an anonymous person giving a scoop on a message board is a trope as old as time. Taking it with about a thousand grains of salt. Would do the same for anyone else in your shoes too.

 

[Klubber]

Already explained where my info comes from, if you don’t believe me no skin off my back. But if you can point out where I have been wrong I would love to get updated info.

I don't have any problems with you sharing stuff from the Big Ten perspective. Some of it might have merit, some maybe not so much. But different perspectives on realignment are certainly welcome here I think.

One issue though on one of your previous posts regarding MSU and Dantonio: You claimed the rest of the Big Ten "figured out his system" which led to his downfall as coach. That's not really accurate as you well know. Dantonio left amid a massive scandal that he was front and center involved in. So your glossing over that makes me skeptical of some of your other posts...

Anyone who wants to read about this sleazy stuff, follow the link. It's not pretty, that's for sure...Detroit·News.com_MSU·Football_Sexual·Assaults