forums

Protect College Sports Act [formerly “SCORE Act” thread]

Arehel said:
I don't think it would be prudent to play in the Big Ten, simply due to geography. Our away games would be outside of a typical 1-4pm window, and we'd be going to Oregon, Washington, California and our closest games are in, not sure, but NY or Iowa?

Send Missouri in the Big Ten and we take their spot in the SEC and make sure we play the Gators every dam year.
Click to expand...
Closest games could be Maryland, Penn St, OSU.
Not that much different in air travel to Pitt, BC, L'ville.
We are going to games right now in California (Stanford,Cal)
 
Arehel said:
I don't think it would be prudent to play in the Big Ten, simply due to geography. Our away games would be outside of a typical 1-4pm window, and we'd be going to Oregon, Washington, California and our closest games are in, not sure, but NY or Iowa?

Send Missouri in the Big Ten and we take their spot in the SEC and make sure we play the Gators every dam year.
Click to expand...

I would say Boston College, Syracuse, Pitt, Louisville, Stanford, and Cal are all essentially BIG10 games now. Throw in Notre Dame who we're playing almost every other year. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Nebraska, and the additional 2 West coast teams are the games that are different.

But if the BIG10 adds a few ACC teams, especially FSU, then our schedule can be easily manageable. If we could lock in the protected rivalries for FSU and an ACC team or two we'd be fine. Indiana hasn't played more than 5 away games in like 5 years.

I would like rules around West coast trips. I think playing them in the first games is much better than later in the season. And I also think it should be every other year as an away game.
 
Arehel said:
I don't think it would be prudent to play in the Big Ten, simply due to geography. Our away games would be outside of a typical 1-4pm window, and we'd be going to Oregon, Washington, California and our closest games are in, not sure, but NY or Iowa?

Send Missouri in the Big Ten and we take their spot in the SEC and make sure we play the Gators every dam year.
Click to expand...
You’re not playing all four West Coast teams in any given season away come on man give me a break

On a bad year, you might play two away some years you might not play any
 
Ispyin said:
No chance of going full share unless and until Oregon’s nd way I no ton would first be made whole. And it doesn’t matter you go as soon as option exists.
Click to expand...

Miami and FSU give the B1G the state of Florida, a massive tv market, and an inside track for recruiting. No one cares about UW and Oregon. Just like usc-ucla getting b1g the Cali market, there is plenty of justification to give Miami and FSU full shares, especially if the SEC has interest in one or both teams to keep the B1G out of the south.
 
Agree that Miami is a full share add to the B10. Will be interesting to see if the Big takes FSU along with UM but it seems more likely the Big adds Miami + 1 from either UVA / Duke if they go to 20, and FSU goes to the SEC. ND will remain independent, at least for the next realignment go around. As long as they don't NEED conference affiliation to have CFP access they will remain indepenent.
 
Miami + Duke or UNC to B1G makes sense. Duke and UNC basketball are a national brand that make up for football and they have the academics. FSU + Clemson looks good for sec. For full shares I think fsu + Miami to either p2 is probably the best play since it locks the other conference out of Florida but I think we can still get full shares (esp with UNC, the crown jewel for the P2s)
 
Is there anyway that the B1G only offers a partial share to Miami?
In that event, do you accept it? For how long? B1G has set precedent so are we sure they are going to offer full shares from jump?
 
rascon said:
Is there anyway that the B1G only offers a partial share to Miami?
In that event, do you accept it? For how long? B1G has set precedent so are we sure they are going to offer full shares from jump?
Click to expand...
Come on!!! The ONLY reason they were forced to take OR / WA when they did was due to the Pac 12 imploding due to inept presidents who TURNED DOWN the $30M per school media offer (they said they wanted $50M) and placed the Pac 12 in a spot where they had NO media deal. The B10 plan HAD BEEN to first establish the SE tier ... adding 2-4 schools from the ACC ... THEN several years later ... expand on the Pacific coast. OR and WA were begging so they took half shares. UM and the Florida market a) ADD VALUE b) are strategic targets. Full share ... no question.
 
Ispyin said:
You’re not playing all four West Coast teams in any given season away come on man give me a break

On a bad year, you might play two away some years you might not play any
Click to expand...

Agree

As I see it there are 4 west coast teams and let's say the B1G goes to 20 teams. So west coast teams would comprise 20% of a 12 game schedule, or 2.4 games per year against west coast teams. Given half the games are away and half are at home, UM would average 1.2 west coast games per year.

And just speculating here, but if the B1G goes to 20 teams I could see an eastern division with 10 teams and western division with 10 teams that would mostly play within each division further limiting cross country travel.
 
Rickd said:
Come on!!! The ONLY reason they were forced to take OR / WA when they did was due to the Pac 12 imploding due to inept presidents who TURNED DOWN the $30M per school media offer (they said they wanted $50M) and placed the Pac 12 in a spot where they had NO media deal. The B10 plan HAD BEEN to first establish the SE tier ... adding 2-4 schools from the ACC ... THEN several years later ... expand on the Pacific coast. OR and WA were begging so they took half shares. UM and the Florida market a) ADD VALUE b) are strategic targets. Full share ... no question.
Click to expand...
NO chance actually unless it's after the new deal is done OR you take care of oregon and washington first.

OREGON and WASHINGTON- have to get their full share before anyone else can, so unless you get networks to agree to that, no new members other than ND are likely to get full share initially.

and you still do it asap either way.
 
Full shares would happen starting with the new contract in 2030, but I don't know what would/could happen prior to then. Generally schools are loathe to take a hit to their expected income levels.

The B1G was on unofficial record of adding 2 for 2030. But the PCSA has puts things in a different light whether it passes or not. If it passes do they even go to 19? But even if it doesn't pass, does it alter their aggressiveness, and/or does it change who they prefer? Would they now like Virginia who is contiguous and has very wealthy politically connected alums? There is an argument for them even if they bring little for football viewership. You can throw darts at the map and make a case (however poor) for many schools.

I guess what I'm wondering is that the B1G was looking at expanding probably even beyond 20 eventually, but does the politics change that now, and if so, does that change who they want? No idea.
 
Rickd said:
Come on!!! The ONLY reason they were forced to take OR / WA when they did was due to the Pac 12 imploding due to inept presidents who TURNED DOWN the $30M per school media offer (they said they wanted $50M) and placed the Pac 12 in a spot where they had NO media deal. The B10 plan HAD BEEN to first establish the SE tier ... adding 2-4 schools from the ACC ... THEN several years later ... expand on the Pacific coast. OR and WA were begging so they took half shares. UM and the Florida market a) ADD VALUE b) are strategic targets. Full share ... no question.
Click to expand...
I think before UW and UO came through, we would have received a full share. But I feel between that debacle and then the ACC getting several schools for partial or zero shares for a number of years there’s precedent for the leagues to now use that as a lever for negotiating with multiple schools. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if we were to find out that we were on the brink of being invited until the B10 used that to get UO/UW into the fold.

I think Miami is the best, but I’m not going to pretend that they couldn’t also invite Duke, UNC, Stanford/Cal and offer partials for a number of years for the privilege/securty of securing their spot in a P2 before congress messes it up even more.

Gotta remember the leagues are working on behalf of the schools so what better way to get buy in from the existing members than to obtain more tv revenue and split it with existing members for a couple years before settling in with full shares for everyone.
 
Ispyin said:
NO chance actually unless it's after the new deal is done OR you take care of oregon and washington first.

OREGON and WASHINGTON- have to get their full share before anyone else can, so unless you get networks to agree to that, no new members other than ND are likely to get full share initially.

and you still do it asap either way.
Click to expand...
Networks WOULD agree. They are the ones that want high value viewer brands to program games with.
 
Back
Top