|
Post by rgeorge on May 9, 2024 12:44:58 GMT -8
True... but I guess my initial point is that UCLA is far from a "cupcake" in the B10's overall athletic picture. And, no matter their current level of investment in FB, they get the same amount of $$ and will never be Rutgers or Maryland, or the current version of NW.Former competitors/colleagues/UCLA grads have assured me the current hire was like an "interim" fix at over a 50% savings (+ no buyout) until the AD budget settles down. We'll see?? I don't really follow Northwestern sports, but since my son moved to Evanston recently, my interest has increased..... I will note they have been to 6 Bowl games in the last 9 years, and thanks to a $480 million dollar donation (that capped off a $6.1B fundraising campaign) from the Ryan family they are renovating Ryan Stadium as we speak. I posit NW is actually ahead of UCLA by several measures (which might have been your point)..... Go Beavers! The initial quote was concerning sports and "regret" "cupcake" status. Since Covid... NW isn't the worst of the B10 by far. But, in the overall scheme of overall athletics UCLA will be fine... Baseball 64-118 Football 12-25/incl 8-5 in '23 MBB 59-40 WBB 35-54 Softball 120-36 So, I wasn't commenting on endowments/donations. And, certainly not the school itself. Athletically UCLA will not be a cupcake or regret the large infusion of $$.
|
|
|
Post by irimi on May 9, 2024 13:43:42 GMT -8
Who did they kick out to take in Hole, UW, USC, and UCLA? At least that point doesn’t make sense. Pick any team in the Western division and we match up pretty well. It is the Eastern division which dominates Big Ten talk year in and year out. And really it all depends on how the Big Ten sees its future. Will they pare down the bottom rung schools or bring in more? We aren’t done yet; that’s about the only thing we can guarantee about this whole fiasco.
UO, UW, USC and UCLA all have more revenue-enhancing potential than the mean B10 school. So they are in.
OSU does not. It is irrelevant whether we match up "pretty well" with any particular school in revenue-generating potential. What matters is "How much MORE will ESPN pay in the next contract if we add this school?", and then "How much LESS will every other school get because we have to divide the spoils with one more school."
To make the math easy, let's say there were actually 10 schools in the B10 and they had a $500m contract with ESPN. Each school gets $50m. We'll imagine that ESPN is valuing that contract on the premise that Ohio State, Penn State and Michigan are worth something like $100m each, Michigan State, Nebraska and Wisconsin maybe $40m, and the other four $20 million.
For the B10 to be interested in OSU, it isn't enough for ESPN to value us more than Indiana. If we were worth $30m, then the Big11 would get a $530m contract, divided by 11 is $48.2 million. So everyone loses $1.8m.
It isn't even enough to be on par with the middle schools. At $40m, the becomes $540m/11 = $49.1 million. Still a loss. OSU has to be above the MEAN value of $50m, well above the median value.
USC, UCLA, UO and UW appear to have met that requirement. We haven't, and likely never will. No P4 conference is going to add us just as part of its incremental growth. We only get into a P4 conference if there is a major restructuring.
so you are thinking that the parts are greater than the whole and I am saying that the whole is greater than the parts. You are making USC’s and UCLA’s case for them. Under that sort of thinking, this never ends until it become whittled down to like 16 teams across the nation, wherever the brands are. I personally think that’s a lot of horses%#t. Teams wax and wane as surely as the moon.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on May 9, 2024 19:13:54 GMT -8
So now UCLA has to pay Cal $10 million a year. And they have the extra travel costs of playing in the Big Ten. And a big debt to pay off, It better hope the promise of $65 million or more comes through.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on May 9, 2024 19:16:26 GMT -8
I wouldn't say OSU isn't a fit with the Big Ten in athletics so much as OSU doesn't bring enough brand power and earning potential in the eyes of the Big Ten. And with UO and UW joining, the Pacific Northwest footprint is taken. I doubt that AAU membership would change that or how other conferences view OSU. But there are schools in the Big Ten that are similar or lower than us in brand power. Not sure about the earnings though because I don’t look into it. Sure, but those schools are already in the Big Ten. Would the Big Ten add them if they were outside looking in? Pretty doubtful. And I say Maryland joining would be pretty doubtful if that decision were to be made today.
|
|
|
Post by obf on May 10, 2024 11:02:33 GMT -8
Why are we even talking about the B1G? The only conference I would hope to get into would be the Big12, and they are the only ones to even have hints or rumors to be interested. Going to the B1G would be 1 step forward two steps back. We would just be a cupcake for the big boys. In the Big 12 we could actually hope to compete. UofHo and the fuskies and fucla will regret going to the B1G, they will end up cupcakes as well. "regret" & "cupcakes"... I guess it all depends on your definition?! Athletes may hate the travel, but the Admins will have zero regret getting more $, UCLA and SC a LOT more. Nor will they regret the exposure and being in the P4 click that will soon move to a "pay to play" super conference. As far as cupcakes, I'm not sure any of the (4) will ever be that in most key sports in a conference with Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisky, Purdue, NW, MSU, Iowa. Take your pick and look at the overall successes of the complete athletic programs. Each B10 school has their strengths, but in the "money makers" there is plenty of room for the traitors to excel. In football, Oregon will immediately move past Penn State into the 3rd rung, maybe #2 depending on what happens at Michigan with no Harbaugh. Oregon's baseball team moves to the #1 spot in that weak league, Softball will similarly be very near the top along with UW's softball team. SC will be in that same top tier in football, and be one of the top, if not the top, team in WBB, and compete nicely in MBB. Depending on the schedule each year UCLA will be fine versus many of the B10 football teams and always be competitive with Cronin coaching MBB, and dominate in many of the Olympic sports. UW is another story completely... but they needed the sure $ even if only a partial share and their arrogance overrides any form of regret. Who knows how Fisch does, but they will probably be similar to UCLA and do just fine versus most of the B10. But, they will struggle in most of the major sports. Hard to see these (4) being "cupcakes" on any regular basis in a conference already full of cupcakes. Cupcakes may have been too strong of a word. But, the 3 I mentioned (very specifically left the condoms out of it) WILL regret the move, even money wise. Don't forget they are NOT getting the $60+ million a year the rest of the B1G are getting, they are getting 30ish. That financial disparity, plus extra travel wear and tear and cost WILL result in less competitive teams, in a conference that even at their best the like of the *ucks et al were going to have a hard time consistently vying for championships. The goal isnt to consistently beat Maryland and Rutgers... the goal is to win conference championships and compete for national championships. In the old, or new, Pac-whatever-number, the *ucks and fuskies COULD have been that top tier dog, like Ohio State and Michigan will be in the B1G, my prediction is they will never even be as relevant in the B1G as the Beavs have been in the Pac-12. Will they do better in some of the olympic sports or baseball? Maybe, but does it matter? Other than us fans doesn't seem like anyone care about gymnastics and baseball in the grand scheme of things, certainly media and revenue don't care about them. My original point is that WE SHOULD NOT want to be in the B1G, so why discuss it or if we need AAU status or whatever. If the Big 12 really does come a calling with a new western division idea... ok we should listen. But even if B1G wanted us at the 30 million dollar payout just like u of ho, I would hope Murthy and Barnes say no.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on May 10, 2024 11:15:38 GMT -8
"regret" & "cupcakes"... I guess it all depends on your definition?! Athletes may hate the travel, but the Admins will have zero regret getting more $, UCLA and SC a LOT more. Nor will they regret the exposure and being in the P4 click that will soon move to a "pay to play" super conference. As far as cupcakes, I'm not sure any of the (4) will ever be that in most key sports in a conference with Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisky, Purdue, NW, MSU, Iowa. Take your pick and look at the overall successes of the complete athletic programs. Each B10 school has their strengths, but in the "money makers" there is plenty of room for the traitors to excel. In football, Oregon will immediately move past Penn State into the 3rd rung, maybe #2 depending on what happens at Michigan with no Harbaugh. Oregon's baseball team moves to the #1 spot in that weak league, Softball will similarly be very near the top along with UW's softball team. SC will be in that same top tier in football, and be one of the top, if not the top, team in WBB, and compete nicely in MBB. Depending on the schedule each year UCLA will be fine versus many of the B10 football teams and always be competitive with Cronin coaching MBB, and dominate in many of the Olympic sports. UW is another story completely... but they needed the sure $ even if only a partial share and their arrogance overrides any form of regret. Who knows how Fisch does, but they will probably be similar to UCLA and do just fine versus most of the B10. But, they will struggle in most of the major sports. Hard to see these (4) being "cupcakes" on any regular basis in a conference already full of cupcakes. Cupcakes may have been too strong of a word. But, the 3 I mentioned (very specifically left the condoms out of it) WILL regret the move, even money wise. Don't forget they are NOT getting the $60+ million a year the rest of the B1G are getting, they are getting 30ish. That financial disparity, plus extra travel wear and tear and cost WILL result in less competitive teams, in a conference that even at their best the like of the *ucks et al were going to have a hard time consistently vying for championships. The goal isnt to consistently beat Maryland and Rutgers... the goal is to win conference championships and compete for national championships. In the old, or new, Pac-whatever-number, the *ucks and fuskies COULD have been that top tier dog, like Ohio State and Michigan will be in the B1G, my prediction is they will never even be as relevant in the B1G as the Beavs have been in the Pac-12. Will they do better in some of the olympic sports or baseball? Maybe, but does it matter? Other than us fans doesn't seem like anyone care about gymnastics and baseball in the grand scheme of things, certainly media and revenue don't care about them. My original point is that WE SHOULD NOT want to be in the B1G, so why discuss it or if we need AAU status or whatever. If the Big 12 really does come a calling with a new western division idea... ok we should listen. But even if B1G wanted us at the 30 million dollar payout just like u of ho, I would hope Murthy and Barnes say no.They wouldn't say no. But yes, if the Big 12 comes calling, that's a much better fit for OSU and WSU, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on May 10, 2024 11:56:32 GMT -8
"regret" & "cupcakes"... I guess it all depends on your definition?! Athletes may hate the travel, but the Admins will have zero regret getting more $, UCLA and SC a LOT more. Nor will they regret the exposure and being in the P4 click that will soon move to a "pay to play" super conference. As far as cupcakes, I'm not sure any of the (4) will ever be that in most key sports in a conference with Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisky, Purdue, NW, MSU, Iowa. Take your pick and look at the overall successes of the complete athletic programs. Each B10 school has their strengths, but in the "money makers" there is plenty of room for the traitors to excel. In football, Oregon will immediately move past Penn State into the 3rd rung, maybe #2 depending on what happens at Michigan with no Harbaugh. Oregon's baseball team moves to the #1 spot in that weak league, Softball will similarly be very near the top along with UW's softball team. SC will be in that same top tier in football, and be one of the top, if not the top, team in WBB, and compete nicely in MBB. Depending on the schedule each year UCLA will be fine versus many of the B10 football teams and always be competitive with Cronin coaching MBB, and dominate in many of the Olympic sports. UW is another story completely... but they needed the sure $ even if only a partial share and their arrogance overrides any form of regret. Who knows how Fisch does, but they will probably be similar to UCLA and do just fine versus most of the B10. But, they will struggle in most of the major sports. Hard to see these (4) being "cupcakes" on any regular basis in a conference already full of cupcakes. Cupcakes may have been too strong of a word. But, the 3 I mentioned (very specifically left the condoms out of it) WILL regret the move, even money wise. Don't forget they are NOT getting the $60+ million a year the rest of the B1G are getting, they are getting 30ish. That financial disparity, plus extra travel wear and tear and cost WILL result in less competitive teams, in a conference that even at their best the like of the *ucks et al were going to have a hard time consistently vying for championships. The goal isnt to consistently beat Maryland and Rutgers... the goal is to win conference championships and compete for national championships. In the old, or new, Pac-whatever-number, the *ucks and fuskies COULD have been that top tier dog, like Ohio State and Michigan will be in the B1G, my prediction is they will never even be as relevant in the B1G as the Beavs have been in the Pac-12. Will they do better in some of the olympic sports or baseball? Maybe, but does it matter? Other than us fans doesn't seem like anyone care about gymnastics and baseball in the grand scheme of things, certainly media and revenue don't care about them. My original point is that WE SHOULD NOT want to be in the B1G, so why discuss it or if we need AAU status or whatever. If the Big 12 really does come a calling with a new western division idea... ok we should listen. But even if B1G wanted us at the 30 million dollar payout just like u of ho, I would hope Murthy and Barnes say no. SC and UCLA are indeed getting full payouts expected to be in the $60-80 mil range, plus the new CFP payout whatever it ends up being. UW and Oregon are getting partials of the media deal, but will get full shares of the new CFP payout to the B10. As far as belonging... again depending on your definition... each one of those schools "belong" in the arrogant 10. And, I could care less how they do, but they will never be in the bottom tier of that conference athletically. But, will always be considered outsiders. As far as OSU there is no fit IMHO. Not until all the lawsuits are settled or at least the ultimate results are solidified. A B12 invite and acceptance could be a "death penalty" if said conference is part of a new supper conference where opting in to paying all athletes is a requirement. Could you possible keep programs afloat? What "if" you could opt out, would OSU be able to compete at all? If you could not opt out, and could not stay afloat what would the exit fees look like? Would such a opt in/out decision be a legal way to leave a conference? And, "if" these lawsuits indeed lead to a super conference would OSU even in the B12 "fit" that model? Would it want to? Could it even afford to? Any super conference model is going to leave out the lower tier schools from each P4 conference, OSU would be in that situation. IMHO... I see no reason for OSU to worry about, or accept, a P4 conference invite until multiple lawsuits are settled and the financial situation is more clear.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 10, 2024 12:54:52 GMT -8
Cupcakes may have been too strong of a word. But, the 3 I mentioned (very specifically left the condoms out of it) WILL regret the move, even money wise. Don't forget they are NOT getting the $60+ million a year the rest of the B1G are getting, they are getting 30ish. That financial disparity, plus extra travel wear and tear and cost WILL result in less competitive teams, in a conference that even at their best the like of the *ucks et al were going to have a hard time consistently vying for championships. The goal isnt to consistently beat Maryland and Rutgers... the goal is to win conference championships and compete for national championships. In the old, or new, Pac-whatever-number, the *ucks and fuskies COULD have been that top tier dog, like Ohio State and Michigan will be in the B1G, my prediction is they will never even be as relevant in the B1G as the Beavs have been in the Pac-12. Will they do better in some of the olympic sports or baseball? Maybe, but does it matter? Other than us fans doesn't seem like anyone care about gymnastics and baseball in the grand scheme of things, certainly media and revenue don't care about them. My original point is that WE SHOULD NOT want to be in the B1G, so why discuss it or if we need AAU status or whatever. If the Big 12 really does come a calling with a new western division idea... ok we should listen. But even if B1G wanted us at the 30 million dollar payout just like u of ho, I would hope Murthy and Barnes say no. SC and UCLA are indeed getting full payouts expected to be in the $60-80 mil range, plus the new CFP payout whatever it ends up being. UW and Oregon are getting partials of the media deal, but will get full shares of the new CFP payout to the B10. As far as belonging... again depending on your definition... each one of those schools "belong" in the arrogant 10. And, I could care less how they do, but they will never be in the bottom tier of that conference athletically. But, will always be considered outsiders. As far as OSU there is no fit IMHO. Not until all the lawsuits are settled or at least the ultimate results are solidified. A B12 invite and acceptance could be a "death penalty" if said conference is part of a new supper conference where opting in to paying all athletes is a requirement. Could you possible keep programs afloat? What "if" you could opt out, would OSU be able to compete at all? If you could not opt out, and could not stay afloat what would the exit fees look like? Would such a opt in/out decision be a legal way to leave a conference? And, "if" these lawsuits indeed lead to a super conference would OSU even in the B12 "fit" that model? Would it want to? Could it even afford to? Any super conference model is going to leave out the lower tier schools from each P4 conference, OSU would be in that situation. IMHO... I see no reason for OSU to worry about, or accept, a P4 conference invite until multiple lawsuits are settled and the financial situation is more clear. UCLA is getting a full share on paper but has to pay millions of that to Cal, so UCLA is not really getting a full share either.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on May 10, 2024 12:56:33 GMT -8
SC and UCLA are indeed getting full payouts expected to be in the $60-80 mil range, plus the new CFP payout whatever it ends up being. UW and Oregon are getting partials of the media deal, but will get full shares of the new CFP payout to the B10. As far as belonging... again depending on your definition... each one of those schools "belong" in the arrogant 10. And, I could care less how they do, but they will never be in the bottom tier of that conference athletically. But, will always be considered outsiders. As far as OSU there is no fit IMHO. Not until all the lawsuits are settled or at least the ultimate results are solidified. A B12 invite and acceptance could be a "death penalty" if said conference is part of a new supper conference where opting in to paying all athletes is a requirement. Could you possible keep programs afloat? What "if" you could opt out, would OSU be able to compete at all? If you could not opt out, and could not stay afloat what would the exit fees look like? Would such a opt in/out decision be a legal way to leave a conference? And, "if" these lawsuits indeed lead to a super conference would OSU even in the B12 "fit" that model? Would it want to? Could it even afford to? Any super conference model is going to leave out the lower tier schools from each P4 conference, OSU would be in that situation. IMHO... I see no reason for OSU to worry about, or accept, a P4 conference invite until multiple lawsuits are settled and the financial situation is more clear. UCLA is getting a full share on paper but has to pay millions of that to Cal, so UCLA is not really getting a full share either. They only have to pay Cal $10 million. It's still a lot better that what the Pac 12 was offering.
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on May 10, 2024 13:04:54 GMT -8
UCLA is getting a full share on paper but has to pay millions of that to Cal, so UCLA is not really getting a full share either. They only have to pay Cal $10 million. It's still a lot better that what the Pac 12 was offering. The Big Ten contract is $60-$65 million, which means that UCLA is down to $50-$55 million. Had the Pac-12 stuck together, the Pac-12 contract likely would have been at least $45-$50 million. There are other assumed payments, which can affect those numbers, but they are speculative. They are just guesses. Just looking at media money, I do not believe that your statement is accurate. They literally may have taken a pay-cut on media money with the hopes that other money comes in later to offset the pay-cut. I personally believe that this was 99.99% a USC vanity project that went too far that UCLA lacked the spine to oppose.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 10, 2024 13:06:12 GMT -8
I would like to see an honest accounting of UCLA's expenses/revenues comparing 2023-2024, their last year in the Pac-12, and 2024-25, their first in the Big Ten. I expect their actual bottom line won't show as much of a boost as they hope, adding Calimony and increased travel costs to the expenses side.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on May 10, 2024 13:15:46 GMT -8
It doesn't matter. The Pac-12 is dead. UCLA will get plenty of money even with Calimony and extra travel expenses. UCLA is in a way better situation moving forward than OSU and WSU are.
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on May 10, 2024 13:22:45 GMT -8
It doesn't matter. The Pac-12 is dead. UCLA will get plenty of money even with Calimony and extra travel expenses. UCLA is in a way better situation moving forward than OSU and WSU are. Or wait five years for when UCLA is in the "super league" and spending more than $100 M on football/NIL and still not coming anywhere close to challenging for a national title, and its Olympic sports athletes have rebelled against all the unnecessary travel. Will that happen? I don't know, any more than you know that UCLA will be in a better situation. Time will tell. In 1861 South Carolina was absolutely certain it made the right choice to secede from the Union.
|
|
|
Post by Judge Smails on May 10, 2024 13:26:27 GMT -8
They only have to pay Cal $10 million. It's still a lot better that what the Pac 12 was offering. The Big Ten contract is $60-$65 million, which means that UCLA is down to $50-$55 million. Had the Pac-12 stuck together, the Pac-12 contract likely would have been at least $45-$50 million.There are other assumed payments, which can affect those numbers, but they are speculative. They are just guesses. Just looking at media money, I do not believe that your statement is accurate. They literally may have taken a pay-cut on media money with the hopes that other money comes in later to offset the pay-cut. I personally believe that this was 99.99% a USC vanity project that went too far that UCLA lacked the spine to oppose. That is total speculation. Doubtful we would have been anywhere near that since the BIG 12 only got $31 million. Maybe $35-$40 million at the most if UCLA and USC stayed.
|
|
|
Post by grayman on May 10, 2024 13:36:16 GMT -8
It doesn't matter. The Pac-12 is dead. UCLA will get plenty of money even with Calimony and extra travel expenses. UCLA is in a way better situation moving forward than OSU and WSU are. Or wait five years for when UCLA is in the "super league" and spending more than $100 M on football/NIL and still not coming anywhere close to challenging for a national title, and its Olympic sports athletes have rebelled against all the unnecessary travel. Will that happen? I don't know, any more than you know that UCLA will be in a better situation. Time will tell. In 1861 South Carolina was absolutely certain it made the right choice to secede from the Union. Nope. I KNOW that UCLA is set to bring in about $65 million a year when it officially joins the Big Ten. Even if that turns out to be $45-50 million with the extra expenses, it's a good deal. IF in five years all that other stuff develops, then it's up to UCLA to decide what it wants to do. I also KNOW that taking whatever a "power conference" is able to offer now is way better than settling for G5 money if the option is there. Nobody knows what will happen years down the road. Nobody at OSU and WSU are going to just throw their hands up and stop working toward getting into a power conference and the money that comes with it based on something that might (probably will to one degree or another) happen down the road.
|
|