Kansas to Big 10?

[SEIOWA CLONE]

The big added value in a scheduling alliance is TV flexibility. I imagine it would look something like this: the B1G and Pac-12 agree to twelve Rose Alliance games every year, televised by FOX or FS1. Those games are not scheduled until the spring before they’re played - like six months in advance. All the schools know until then is the date of the game - the week kept open for a Rose Alliance game.

FOX plays a very large role in arranging the matchups. The network is guaranteed to get to broadcast games between teams that it really wants to have play each other. So Ohio State and Michigan would play USC and Oregon a lot, but also in years where a middle-of-the-pack team is really good - like Stanford or Michigan State have been - the network can cash in on that, too. FOX would pay a premium for this. It’s a bit like the B1G-ACC or Big 12-SEC basketball series, in which ESPN does exactly that.

The schools would also have to know if they are hosting our traveling that weekend. But you could tie that too how many home conference game each school has. Not sure your idea of blue blood vs blue blood is going to make people like Iowa, Illinois and Purdue real happy. "How great, we get an away game with Cal this year." Or "we get Washington St on the schedule."
I tend to think after a while if those schools are not playing the USC's and Stanford's of the Pac 12, then they will be saying "we were better off playing ISU every year than this crap, at least ISU was close and cheaper for the university."

 

[Cloneon]

But would the networks really pay more is the question. The contract is locked up year by year, of how much money the network it going to pay any conference, and really does Iowa/Arizona bring in any more money than Iowa/ISU? If they only play one of these games a year, you still get Iowa/Miami (OH) and the rest of these cupcakes. Does Nebraska/OU bring in few dollars than Nebraska/UCLA or any combination of teams teams other than BIG 12/Pac 12 games?

I really have no clue, but if both league are going to do yearly scheduled games between the two conferences, and keep it at one per year, I just don't see the extra benefit of doing it over what each school is currently now doing. Two games a year, I get it, but not with just one.

Respectfully, they still want to maximize advertising revenue. If a game is out-of-market, I'd suspect there'd be slightly more interest in televising it as compared to game which is still 'in-market'. If for no other reason, than to expand footprint image and national advertising.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Respectfully, they still want to maximize advertising revenue. If a game is out-of-market, I'd suspect there'd be slightly more interest in televising it as compared to game which is still 'in-market'. If for no other reason, than to expand footprint image and national advertising.

I get what you are saying, but all the Big 10 games are being broadcast now either on one of the major networks or BTN+ or FSI. Is there really a market to bring in more revenue for Purdue/Or. St or Iowa/Cal. I would say no. The money is going to be made with OSU/Oregon, and Penn. St/Washington, but we are already getting that first game this year and is the second draw better than Penn St/Auburn will this year?

The only way this makes sense is to schedule 2 games home and home each year with all schools in the conference, leaving 2 out of the Big 10. Otherwise the money will not be there.

Now if the plan is get USC and Oregon used to playing games each year in the Midwest and East and then plan on stealing them from the Pac 12, down the road, then that is totally different. Which I tend to think is what the Big 10 is hoping to pull off here.

 

[cyIclSoneU]

I tend to think after a while if those schools are not playing the USC's and Stanford's of the Pac 12, then they will be saying "we were better off playing ISU every year than this crap, at least ISU was close and cheaper for the university."

They will be cashing larger checks from FOX. Don't you see by now? All that matters is $$$. Geography, fan interest, traditional rivals are all in the backseat. If they can get more $$$, they will do it - because they think the SEC is doing the same and they can't fall behind. That is what college athletics has become.

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

They will be cashing larger checks from FOX. Don't you see by now? All that matters is $$$. Geography, fan interest, traditional rivals are all in the backseat. If they can get more $$$, they will do it - because they think the SEC is doing the same and they can't fall behind. That is what college athletics has become.

But we keep hearing that the next round the Big 10 will be getting a massive increase from their TV deal. If that is the case then scheduling one game a year with the Pac 12 is not going to make up what the SEC did by adding OU and UT.
The only way for the Big 10 to make such a splash would be to get ND, off the board, or convince USC and 3 or 4 other teams to switch conferences and move to the Pac 12.
Now that may be their plan, but right now we do not know, but there will not be huge money in a one game per year series with the Pac 12, than what the league is getting now with the current setup. Wisconsin's two games will LSU drew more of an audience than a game with them playing Washington or UCLA. Any game the conference has with ND will outdraw any game they could schedule with the Pac 12.

If they go to this agreement, then they are giving up those other games, do you not see that? Or they are forced to schedule 11 P5 games those years, cutting down home games and I cannot see them wanting to tie themselves to the Pac 12 and never playing teams from the ACC and SEC, which they currently can do.

 

[Die4Cy]

Obviously that is the ESPN - SEC plan. And, why the network is likely pissed that the whole OuT thing happened before the CFP was approved for expansion. Now OuT is moving to the SEC and the CFP expansion may not happen, dooming the SEC to only 1 or 2 teams in. Will the CFP still expand...likely, but the other conferences hold the power to do this...not the SEC.

Again, if the powers that be want the CFP to organize such that more than two SEC teams make it in, they will say "A CFP with only conference champs and two wild cards is worth X to televise. A 12 team CFP that can accept the teams we prefer is worth X+Y to televise, with Y being a sum equivalent to the GDP of some small countries. And then the conferences vote for X+Y because they need their share of that money.

This is likely how we arrived at a 12 team format in the first place.

 

[Cloneon]

They will be cashing larger checks from FOX. Don't you see by now? All that matters is $$$. Geography, fan interest, traditional rivals are all in the backseat. If they can get more $$$, they will do it - because they think the SEC is doing the same and they can't fall behind. That is what college athletics has become.

Those equal more dollars

 

[cyIclSoneU]

Those equal more dollars

If only!

 

[harimad]

Ehh. Why are giving the conference championship losers a spot? Why do they get a do-over? They just lost to a team that made the playoff, they’re obviously not the best team in the country!

I get the opinions of some that the playoff needs to be the best teams of the season, regardless of whether they win their conference or not, but I simply don’t agree. This isn’t basketball, where you can whittle down a field from 68 to 4 in two weeks. I say, prove it on the field by winning games, which includes winning your conference championship. That makes CCGs essentially a first-round playoff game, and wouldn’t that be great? Taking most of the CCG losers automatically really cheapens the whole conference championship, doesn’t it?

Eight playoff teams. We still have a Power 5, shaky as it may seem. Add in the top-ranked G5 champion, that’s six. There’s two spots left, which means yeah, one or two conference losers get in (along with your occasional ND independent), but no … don’t leave spots available for three or four CCG losers. (Although, heck, I’d be okay with a couple more G5 champs. Would they actually have a shot at winning the whole thing? Unlikely, but at least they’d get to prove it in the field instead of getting shut out because the SEC needs 4 teams in every year. Let’s make it the playoff a Tournament of Champions, not a self-proving confirmation of high preseason rankings.)

I like your thought, but what about a step further? What if the CFP made the CCGs officially part of the first round of the playoff?

Committee would select at-large teams (to get to 16) and match them into first round games the same week as the CCGs.

Then they would re-seed the winners of those games into the quarterfinals.

 

[isu81]

But do those blue blood schools really want to play 2 more blue blood schools each year out of conference? To do this requires each school to give up one home game every other year.
The big 10 schedule allows for 5 home, then 4 home games each year in conference, this puts the numbers at 6 and 5 plus one cupcake game at home. Would they be losing money in long run and wins by not having that yearly 7th home game?

Iowa has made it very clear they want at least 7 home games a year, playing the Pac 12 two games a year non conference only allows them to do that every other year. That could be reason enough for some of these schools to not want to go along with such an arrangement?

Not if they stopped playing Iowa State. They’d play their P12 opponents at home and away in alternating years to complement the 5/4 conference schedule.

 

[CascadeClone]

I like your thought, but what about a step further? What if the CFP made the CCGs officially part of the first round of the playoff?

Committee would select at-large teams (to get to 16) and match them into first round games the same week as the CCGs.

Then they would re-seed the winners of those games into the quarterfinals.

I have had same thought, but the answer is inventory. The CFP expansion is to ADD games net-net, and thus more moneys.

It would be fantastic if we had 8 conferences with 8-10 teams each, playing round robin, and then the winners of those conferences would be round 1 of playoffs. If I was king for a day, it would happen.

 

[RustShack]

I have had same thought, but the answer is inventory. The CFP expansion is to ADD games net-net, and thus more moneys.

It would be fantastic if we had 8 conferences with 8-10 teams each, playing round robin, and then the winners of those conferences would be round 1 of playoffs. If I was king for a day, it would happen.

Ive said it before, I’d have a P7 with 10 teams each. 12 team playoff so the random great G5 team(s) can have a shot. Media rights would be relatively even across all the power conferences with a bump for more prime time games.

 

[stateofmind]

I wonder if our ISU alums in Florida, and Arizona move the needle for B1G in those states. Guessing not, but our fan base is very large in those states. (But guessing most B1G schools litter those states enough that it wouldn't matter.)

 

[SEIOWA CLONE]

Not if they stopped playing Iowa State. They’d play their P12 opponents at home and away in alternating years to complement the 5/4 conference schedule.

I figured if this happens that would be the end of the Cyhawk game, but like I have said before, how does playing one game a year improve the money for the conference just because that game is between the Big 10 and the Pac 12 any more than if is between the Big 10 and other conferences?

 

[RustShack]

I figured if this happens that would be the end of the Cyhawk game, but like I have said before, how does playing one game a year improve the money for the conference just because that game is between the Big 10 and the Pac 12 any more than if is between the Big 10 and other conferences?

Under the Big12’s last GoR, they went from an 8 game schedule to a 9 game schedule to up the contract payment per school.

 

[ImperialCyclone]

“We add no value” is a phrase we are going to hear for the next 4 years.

 

[Cyclones1969]

“We add no value” is a phrase we are going to hear for the next 4 years.

is that what all those models you built tell you? Even though we have already gone through the fallacy of them?

 

[RustShack]

“We add no value” is a phrase we are going to hear for the next 4 years.

Well we would likely hear what will happen in the next year or two, otherwise we will be hearing that a lot longer than 4 years.

 

[ImperialCyclone]

is that what all those models you built tell you? Even though we have already gone through the fallacy of them?

Yes.

 

[scyclonekid]

“We add no value” is a phrase we are going to hear for the next 4 years.

Do you have inside information?