USC and UCLA to the Big Ten by 2024?

[adoraz]

Just wanted to point out about the MLB "dying" narrative (I'm a Braves fan and tired of seeing it lol): MLB makes $10 billion a year in revenue which is the same as the NFL and also 10X the NCAA.

The Reds are currently in last place in the NL and also haven't won the NL in 32 years. They have zero excitement but if they were a solid team then fans would show up.

The soccer team is one of the strongest in MLS attendance and also one of the best teams. While their average attendance is a bit higher than the Reds (21K vs 17K), the Reds play 5X as many games... so the Reds attendance is still overall a lot higher.

I do agree that leagues and teams can alienate their fans over time, but it'd take a lot to do so as well as many, many years. The MLB also isn't doing as well as other leagues in attracting young fans, but it's still doing incredibly well overall. The main reason people think this is because World Series TV ratings are down by a lot since the 80's, but that's true for basically any playoff series that isn't an "event", such as the Super Bowl (1 game) or an NBA (or MLB) game 7 finals between 2 intriguing teams. It's also become more regionalized as there are so many more entertainment options these days. I myself don't watch MLB unless the Braves are playing.

These B1G/SEC moves might start diminishing interest amongst fan bases for some games on the schedule but overall they will probably result in higher TV ratings nationwide and thus more money. The average TV viewer I'd think would just want to see big brands go up against one another even if they don't have a ton of history or proximity. Also, they are trying to squeeze out teams like Washington St and Oregon St.

Fortunately the Big East is a strong and focused brand with a loyal following. That's extremely important today given there are so many entertainment options. All of these moves are being driven by the TV networks and they'll want the Big East included in whatever ends up happening, simply because they'd earn more money with the Big East included. Additional valuable inventory is always a good thing. As for smaller leagues without a nationwide audience... it's certainly more debatable, but the Big East should be fine.

[gtmoBlue]

I am utterly shocked (even more so than by last summer's Texas/Oklahoma news to the SEC). I have long thought that a BIG-PAC raid was inevitable, but I always thought that it would come after an ACC raid; alas, to quote Bob Dylan, "The Times They Are A-Changin'". The B1G (and the SEC) are not done. More consolidation will occur, and the Mega 2 will continue to increase television revenues and exclusivity. The Big Ten is certainly on the phone right now with Oregon, Washington, Stanford and California as well, with Arizona and Colorado on Line-2. They will look to create a Western Division, with an endgame of probably ~24 schools broken into a few divisions/pods. Heck, the B1G Championship might inevitably become the Rose Bowl Game itself, whose champion could face off against the Sugar Bowl Champion in the new Division 1 Championship Game (host to be determined/bid-on). If you don't think Notre Dame will want to join this exclusive national high academic/athletic conference, under a similar ACC-type arrangement, guess again.

The SEC will patiently wait to gobble-up the left-overs from the ACC, also moving to ~24 teams as well. I'd imagine they'll seek North Carolina, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Virginia Tech.

As to the Big East, now more than ever, I am incredibly confident that we will get a Kansas, a Syracuse, etc. to complete the league for the next decade.

I too expected the ACC to be raided 1st. oh well. Nice well developed rant on B1G football though.

As to Notre Dame: The golden domers will decline. The B1G wants ND - all in. No ACC-type arrangements. Why give up the best football seat in the house...only to become another Nebraska in the B1G? ND plays a national schedule, not regional as conferences do. They make plenty of money with NBC, they don't have to share. They make their own decisions - not compromising with 15-20 other schools - none of which have any common interests or love, for Notre Dame. There is a century of bad blood btwn the Big 10 and ND...ND hasn't lost their minds nor the memories. With all of this newfound promotion, ND will seek-and get-more money from NBC. They will stay with the ACC, for the time being, and watch the landscape. Smart move. Should the ACC implode, then make moves as necessary. Notre Dame has a trump card. US. They can stay indy and park all other sports back here in the BE.

Jet wants to backfill with lesser schools - now. No amigo...patience. Better new members lie just ahead. Patience.

God forbid we would take Kansas, for any reason. Cheating ass S'cuse...I can accept (due to history, Bayheim's last 10 years of comments/antiACC rhetoric). S'cuse, Duke, ND to get to 14. If SHTF we can possibly go to 16 or 18 with better schools than SLU, Dayton, VCU, etc.

My friend Adoraz thinks we're fine. Yes, for now. However, basketball is an afterthought. Football is the driver behind all this activity and football money...not basketball. Let's not get overconfident here.




ND has a trump card. They stay indy...and if necessary, move their non-football sports to the Big East.

[adoraz]

My friend Adoraz thinks we're fine. Yes, for now. However, basketball is an afterthought. Football is the driver behind all this activity and football money...not basketball. Let's not get overconfident here.

Oh trust me, if those Power schools become available we absolutely need to expand (I'm just against bringing in teams like Saint Louis for now). I don't like the idea of the other power conferences nearly doubling our number of schools as it gives them a huge advantage in terms of bids. I also do think there's a (small) chance that after the ACC is raided they take a few Big East teams for basketball and the Big East is worse off. As of now though we're good, and I do think there will always be a place for teams in the Big East as they bring in revenue for the TV networks.

Seems there may be some more movement tomorrow as it's rumored a few Pac 12 teams will meet with the Big XII. Things will probably change very quickly.

[Xudash]

Sooo. SC/UCLA to the B1G is the death knell to college football? The MLB/Nascar move to kill the sport?
Gee, thanks for the info guys. So Cincinnati soccer it is!

Ha! So allow me to semi-retract and refine a little, especially given adoraz's good points:

1. Baseball may be healthy overall, but I still think we can agree that there is a great deal of financial imbalance in professional baseball, and, again, that is due to how revenue is handled in the league (i.e. the bigger markets benefit in this category). There is a reason that a proud franchise like the Cincinnati Reds has been down for so long. That and a solid dose of front office ineptitude perhaps. Even if the Reds organization somehow became God's gift to finding exceptional young talent, the franchise does not have the purse strings to compete against the major market teams; it's in no position to RETAIN a sufficient amount of talent that would enable it to build and hold onto a series-worthy roster. Mike Brown down the street does not have that problem with his NFL franchise and revenue sharing arrangement with the NFL.

2. Maybe that's our parallel here. Is it time to sound the death knell for college football? Hell, no. If you consider what we've been consuming with big-time college football since the BCS rebooted into the playoff format, we find ourselves each week with at least a couple of marquee games. Every game is important, because a bad slip up here and there at the wrong time means missing the playoff boat. Perhaps now with the SEC / B1G "Goliath" thing going on, more games like that will be the rule; there won't be as many days off for any program. College football, unlike college basketball is more about catching the big games from week to week as the season moves towards its finale of the Playoff 4, whereas college basketball is about being inclusive in order to establish the drama and fun that comes with the NCAAT at the end of the season.

3. Any way you look at it, based on how media agreements work in the sport, we're about to see which programs are worthy and which are not - "are you worth a $100 million per year or aren't you? There simply aren't that many programs out there that can nod "yes" confidently to that question, so these two mega conferences probably eventually sort out at 20 each.

One last observation: we already know that there are only a handful of - maybe up to about 15 or so - athletic departments that are truly profitable. I'm not talking about playing games with GAAP accounting. I'm talking about looking at each of these programs from more of an EVA perspective to assess what their true cash flows look like. One glaring line item with the less fortunate is the larger student fee subsidy that comes over from the institution. When you focus on that, you begin to consider that schools like Boston College, Wake, TCU, Baylor and Syracuse - all private and all having student populations of around 20k or less - are not in great shape when it comes to taking a haircut on the conference media distribution figure side of things.

p.s. The Boston Pops looked pretty strong on Bloomberg tonight, though I think one of the cannons didn't go off when it was supposed to for Bill's Overture.

[sju88grad]

I have season tickets for LAFC here in LA and if given the choice of an LAFC or a Dodger game, I'm taking LAFC without any hesitation.....but that's just me.....

[adoraz]

Sooo. SC/UCLA to the B1G is the death knell to college football? The MLB/Nascar move to kill the sport?
Gee, thanks for the info guys. So Cincinnati soccer it is!

Ha! So allow me to semi-retract and refine a little, especially given adoraz's good points:

1. Baseball may be healthy overall, but I still think we can agree that there is a great deal of financial imbalance in professional baseball, and, again, that is due to how revenue is handled in the league (i.e. the bigger markets benefit in this category). There is a reason that a proud franchise like the Cincinnati Reds has been down for so long. That and a solid dose of front office ineptitude perhaps. Even if the Reds organization somehow became God's gift to finding exceptional young talent, the franchise does not have the purse strings to compete against the major market teams; it's in no position to RETAIN a sufficient amount of talent that would enable it to build and hold onto a series-worthy roster. Mike Brown down the street does not have that problem with his NFL franchise and revenue sharing arrangement with the NFL.

Yeah that's a very valid point. MLB, more than any other sport, allows for teams with higher revenue to set whatever salary they want. It's still very possible for medium or sometimes smaller market teams to win the World Series (such as my Braves last year), but it's becoming less common. Teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are constantly at the top of their divisions and that's getting boring. I'm sure MLB's reasoning is when those teams are in the playoffs it produces higher TV ratings, but I'm not sure if that's good for the game long-term or not. Probably will lose some fans, but it's been going on for a while now so it's hard to say what impact it has had. Fans in smaller markets do seem to return when their teams are good, but the NFL's equal model may be better/healthier long-term.

I have season tickets for LAFC here in LA and if given the choice of an LAFC or a Dodger game, I'm taking LAFC without any hesitation.....but that's just me.....

I'm not denying that soccer is growing in popularity, it definitely is, but rather I'm saying it's not a major threat to MLB's popularity at this point.

Dodgers are one of those teams that benefits from MLB's revenue model, and it has definitely shown in their attendance.

LAFC averages 20K per game in 2022 and had 323K total attendance in 2021 across 16 home games.
Dodgers averages 48K per game in 2022 and had 2.8M total attendance in 2021 across 81 home games.

Dodgers attendance is also up significantly in 2022 and is on pace to hit 3.9M this year while LAFC attendance is only up slightly.

Dodgers' attendance is the best it's ever been, so while I do acknowledge that some prefer LAFC, the Dodgers are much more popular by a wide margin and have only gotten more popular under MLB's revenue model.

[DeltaV]

I am utterly shocked (even more so than by last summer's Texas/Oklahoma news to the SEC). I have long thought that a BIG-PAC raid was inevitable, but I always thought that it would come after an ACC raid; alas, to quote Bob Dylan, "The Times They Are A-Changin'". The B1G (and the SEC) are not done. More consolidation will occur, and the Mega 2 will continue to increase television revenues and exclusivity. The Big Ten is certainly on the phone right now with Oregon, Washington, Stanford and California as well, with Arizona and Colorado on Line-2. They will look to create a Western Division, with an endgame of probably ~24 schools broken into a few divisions/pods. Heck, the B1G Championship might inevitably become the Rose Bowl Game itself, whose champion could face off against the Sugar Bowl Champion in the new Division 1 Championship Game (host to be determined/bid-on). If you don't think Notre Dame will want to join this exclusive national high academic/athletic conference, under a similar ACC-type arrangement, guess again.

The SEC will patiently wait to gobble-up the left-overs from the ACC, also moving to ~24 teams as well. I'd imagine they'll seek North Carolina, Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, NC State, Virginia Tech.

As to the Big East, now more than ever, I am incredibly confident that we will get a Kansas, a Syracuse, etc. to complete the league for the next decade.

I too expected the ACC to be raided 1st. oh well. Nice well developed rant on B1G football though.

As to Notre Dame: The golden domers will decline. The B1G wants ND - all in. No ACC-type arrangements. Why give up the best football seat in the house...only to become another Nebraska in the B1G? ND plays a national schedule, not regional as conferences do. They make plenty of money with NBC, they don't have to share. They make their own decisions - not compromising with 15-20 other schools - none of which have any common interests or love, for Notre Dame. There is a century of bad blood btwn the Big 10 and ND...ND hasn't lost their minds nor the memories. With all of this newfound promotion, ND will seek-and get-more money from NBC. They will stay with the ACC, for the time being, and watch the landscape. Smart move. Should the ACC implode, then make moves as necessary. Notre Dame has a trump card. US. They can stay indy and park all other sports back here in the BE.

Jet wants to backfill with lesser schools - now. No amigo...patience. Better new members lie just ahead. Patience.

God forbid we would take Kansas, for any reason. Cheating ass S'cuse...I can accept (due to history, Bayheim's last 10 years of comments/antiACC rhetoric). S'cuse, Duke, ND to get to 14. If SHTF we can possibly go to 16 or 18 with better schools than SLU, Dayton, VCU, etc.

My friend Adoraz thinks we're fine. Yes, for now. However, basketball is an afterthought. Football is the driver behind all this activity and football money...not basketball. Let's not get overconfident here.




ND has a trump card. They stay indy...and if necessary, move their non-football sports to the Big East.

Down here in South Carolina, already reading columnists calling for Clemson to leave for the SEC. Supposedly big boosters are saying within 3 years, so who knows what will happen with their grant of rights.

[Savannah Jay]

Yeah that's a very valid point. MLB, more than any other sport, allows for teams with higher revenue to set whatever salary they want. It's still very possible for medium or sometimes smaller market teams to win the World Series (such as my Braves last year), but it's becoming less common. Teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are constantly at the top of their divisions and that's getting boring. I'm sure MLB's reasoning is when those teams are in the playoffs it produces higher TV ratings, but I'm not sure if that's good for the game long-term or not. Probably will lose some fans, but it's been going on for a while now so it's hard to say what impact it has had. Fans in smaller markets do seem to return when their teams are good, but the NFL's equal model may be better/healthier long-term.

Agree with your overall sentiment about baseball but the Braves are one of baseball's "haves." IN 2021, they had revenues of $443M and trailed only the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox (and are one sport above the Cubs). Aside from their media deal, the Braves own all of those business around the battery and that has infused some serious income into the formerly mid-market Braves. I even read that after the World Series, Braves revenue was more like $568M.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

But the inequity in baseball is killing it (well, that and 4 hour games). My 5 kids don't care about baseball. They think it's boring and takes too long. They'll go to a game (when daddy's buying!) but they don't watch it on TV (unless the Braves or Cubs are in the playoffs...then maybe).
The great franchises of the sports past (Reds, Pirates, Orioles, to name a few) have almost no chance to compete. Why watch regular season games when the end conclusion is mostly known?

On the other hand, who had the Rams and Bengals picked to play in the Super Bowl before last season started?

[adoraz]

Yeah that's a very valid point. MLB, more than any other sport, allows for teams with higher revenue to set whatever salary they want. It's still very possible for medium or sometimes smaller market teams to win the World Series (such as my Braves last year), but it's becoming less common. Teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are constantly at the top of their divisions and that's getting boring. I'm sure MLB's reasoning is when those teams are in the playoffs it produces higher TV ratings, but I'm not sure if that's good for the game long-term or not. Probably will lose some fans, but it's been going on for a while now so it's hard to say what impact it has had. Fans in smaller markets do seem to return when their teams are good, but the NFL's equal model may be better/healthier long-term.

Agree with your overall sentiment about baseball but the Braves are one of baseball's "haves." IN 2021, they had revenues of $443M and trailed only the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox (and are one sport above the Cubs). Aside from their media deal, the Braves own all of those business around the battery and that has infused some serious income into the formerly mid-market Braves. I even read that after the World Series, Braves revenue was more like $568M.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

But the inequity in baseball is killing it (well, that and 4 hour games). My 5 kids don't care about baseball. They think it's boring and takes too long. They'll go to a game (when daddy's buying!) but they don't watch it on TV (unless the Braves or Cubs are in the playoffs...then maybe).
The great franchises of the sports past (Reds, Pirates, Orioles, to name a few) have almost no chance to compete. Why watch regular season games when the end conclusion is mostly known?

On the other hand, who had the Rams and Bengals picked to play in the Super Bowl before last season started?

That's true the Braves do earn a lot in revenue, but unlike most teams they don't reflect that in their payroll. This year, after their WS win, they are #9 (/30) in MLB in overall payroll (highest they've been in a very long time). Last year they were #11, so they won it all with a payroll just above average. In 2020 they were #16, which is what they've typically been at during the 21st century. I do agree there are a lot of teams like the Orioles that unfortunately have no chance at competing. I'm in favor of a salary cap and have been for a while to improve competition, though I'm not convinced the current set-up is detrimental for the game from a business standpoint.

[Savannah Jay]

Yeah that's a very valid point. MLB, more than any other sport, allows for teams with higher revenue to set whatever salary they want. It's still very possible for medium or sometimes smaller market teams to win the World Series (such as my Braves last year), but it's becoming less common. Teams like the Yankees and Dodgers are constantly at the top of their divisions and that's getting boring. I'm sure MLB's reasoning is when those teams are in the playoffs it produces higher TV ratings, but I'm not sure if that's good for the game long-term or not. Probably will lose some fans, but it's been going on for a while now so it's hard to say what impact it has had. Fans in smaller markets do seem to return when their teams are good, but the NFL's equal model may be better/healthier long-term.

Agree with your overall sentiment about baseball but the Braves are one of baseball's "haves." IN 2021, they had revenues of $443M and trailed only the Dodgers, Yankees, and Red Sox (and are one sport above the Cubs). Aside from their media deal, the Braves own all of those business around the battery and that has infused some serious income into the formerly mid-market Braves. I even read that after the World Series, Braves revenue was more like $568M.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/193645/revenue-of-major-league-baseball-teams-in-2010/

But the inequity in baseball is killing it (well, that and 4 hour games). My 5 kids don't care about baseball. They think it's boring and takes too long. They'll go to a game (when daddy's buying!) but they don't watch it on TV (unless the Braves or Cubs are in the playoffs...then maybe).
The great franchises of the sports past (Reds, Pirates, Orioles, to name a few) have almost no chance to compete. Why watch regular season games when the end conclusion is mostly known?

On the other hand, who had the Rams and Bengals picked to play in the Super Bowl before last season started?

That's true the Braves do earn a lot in revenue, but unlike most teams they don't reflect that in their payroll. This year, after their WS win, they are #9 (/30) in MLB in overall payroll (highest they've been in a very long time). Last year they were #11, so they won it all with a payroll just above average. In 2020 they were #16, which is what they've typically been at during the 21st century. I do agree there are a lot of teams like the Orioles that unfortunately have no chance at competing. I'm in favor of a salary cap and have been for a while to improve competition, though I'm not convinced the current set-up is detrimental for the game from a business standpoint.

Braves payroll is nothing to sniff at...but payroll is only the most visible sign that a team has money. Less visible but just as important is a team's scouting infrastructure. Teams that spend money on scouting are better positioned for the long term success. When you can spend on players and spend on scouting like the Braves can do now, they are one of the "haves." Locking up Acuna and Albies with long term, below market contracts was very forward thinking on the Braves part. Their pitching is mostly young. Those two factors are why the Braves payroll was "only" 11th last year.

I went to a Pirates game earlier this year (trying to get to all MLB parks. Beautiful stadium, location, team history...Friday night game, beautiful weather. 12,000 fans.