Iowa AD says floating scrapping divisions

Donate To GopherHole
Some guy said:
I shouldn’t say nothing to do with TV contract.
But the big ten TV contract is 102-106 games per year depending on the season. That is 1/102-1/106th of the TV deal.
It is the largest importance of those games (maybe)…probably more like one of the top 5.

If the big ten title game alone is 10% of the revenue (it isn’t)
The big ten isn’t going to diminish 90% of their tv money model for a marginal increase in a very small piece of the pie.

expecially when Ohio state Michigan isn’t moving off the last weekend of the season. So they either aren’t playing in the big ten title game or they are repeating

a change in scheduling model likely means you aren’t getting all 3 of Michigan -PSU, Michigan-OSU, PSU-OSU every year….so that’s lost revenue (or if you are there is at least 3 losses between the 3 of them so two of them making the title game is diminished anyways.


you can say all day that the big ten title game could make more money. And it is possibly true depending on the matchup. It is also possibly not true. It is also something that would have ramifications on the importance of games outside the championship game that would impact ratings and money.
Click to expand...
When the Big 10 Championship was established the TV rights were snapped up by FOX as a stand alone (only conference game they showed all year). Rights fees announced as $20 - $25 million per year, 2011 - 16.

I remember thinking that's it? Adding a 12th team, breaking some longstanding annual matchups, trying to appease everyone with crossover games, impacting all of the other sports for less than $3 million per school (including ticket & sponsor deals)? Nebraska is not exactly an academic heavyweight either.

For a game that to me exists as a cash grab 1st and a mode to crown conference supremacy 2nd, just thought it would be more bucks than that.

The next go around FOX shelled out approximately $240 million per year for 50 football & basketball games each, exclusive rights to Mich-OSU season finale and the Title game. Hard to gauge exactly what percentage the Championship equates to in the deal which ends this year.

If it was worth that much 10 years ago, I suppose it's worth about $75 million now, just a guess based on how much rights have increased in general. Of course it's now spread out 14 ways, so maybe $5 - 6 million per school.

My only point is if they were willing to make such a sweeping change for what seems like a paltry amount a decade ago, would it take much to change course yet again, especially if the powers that be feel like it will also position itself for BCS success?
 

It should. Or better yet, the member institutions for sure should. No school in the West should support this in any capacity and half the teams in the East shouldn't either.
 

Yeah, I'm fully onboard with 8 game conf + 2 Alliance games per year. I think that would be fun for fans and worth $$$ to TV partners.


The main possible benefit to Gopher fans of going divisionless/3 locked/5 rotating is if we could get the Jug every year. But if they were going to lock us into some other team, like Nebraska ( :cautious: ), then it wouldn't even be that different, other than rotating through the rest of the conference home/home every 4 years. Basically trading seeing some of the current West teams yearly for seeing some of the East teams more regularly.

So I think I would vote for keeping divisions as is, just rotating through the East with the 2 games per year. 7 years to get home/home with every East team. Good enough for me.
 

Ope3 said:
When the Big 10 Championship was established the TV rights were snapped up by FOX as a stand alone (only conference game they showed all year). Rights fees announced as $20 - $25 million per year, 2011 - 16.

I remember thinking that's it? Adding a 12th team, breaking some longstanding annual matchups, trying to appease everyone with crossover games, impacting all of the other sports for less than $3 million per school (including ticket & sponsor deals)? Nebraska is not exactly an academic heavyweight either.

For a game that to me exists as a cash grab 1st and a mode to crown conference supremacy 2nd, just thought it would be more bucks than that.

The next go around FOX shelled out approximately $240 million per year for 50 football & basketball games each, exclusive rights to Mich-OSU season finale and the Title game. Hard to gauge exactly what percentage the Championship equates to in the deal which ends this year.

If it was worth that much 10 years ago, I suppose it's worth about $75 million now, just a guess based on how much rights have increased in general. Of course it's now spread out 14 ways, so maybe $5 - 6 million per school.

My only point is if they were willing to make such a sweeping change for what seems like a paltry amount a decade ago, would it take much to change course yet again, especially if the powers that be feel like it will also position itself for BCS success?
Click to expand...
2 million per school a decade ago was a 10% increase in revenue.
2 million per school next year is a 4% increase in revenue.

to get an increase of 2 million per school without adding teams the change would need to add 28 million in new revenue.
To get an increase in 2 million per school while adding two new schools the new deal would have to generate 132 million extra in revenue (more than that if you assume the deal is going up in value even if no changes are made)
 

Some guy said:
2 million per school a decade ago was a 10% increase in revenue.
2 million per school next year is a 4% increase in revenue.

to get an increase of 2 million per school without adding teams the change would need to add 28 million in new revenue.
To get an increase in 2 million per school while adding two new schools the new deal would have to generate 132 million extra in revenue (more than that if you assume the deal is going up in value even if no changes are made)
Click to expand...
Bolded: pretty damn eye opening.

It's why the SEC can go to 16 ... if it's Texas and OU.

If Big Ten could add USC and Notre Dame, then yes. Otherwise, likely no.
 


Gophers_4life said:
Bolded: pretty damn eye opening.

It's why the SEC can go to 16 ... if it's Texas and OU.

If Big Ten could add USC and Notre Dame, then yes. Otherwise, likely no.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I mean honestly if the goal is to increase revenue might be to have big ten network try to buy pac 12, big 12, ACC, and G5 TV rights do BTN has more content. Would be easier to increase revenue that way than to expand

Adding two teams gives you an extra 14 (13-15) games to sell if you have an 8 game conference schedule. 12-14 with a 9 game conference schedule.
Are 15 virginia and North Carolina games worth 8.8 million per game to the networks?
8 Notre dame games are worth 15 million per year for reference.
 

Some guy said:
2 million per school a decade ago was a 10% increase in revenue.
2 million per school next year is a 4% increase in revenue.

to get an increase of 2 million per school without adding teams the change would need to add 28 million in new revenue.
To get an increase in 2 million per school while adding two new schools the new deal would have to generate 132 million extra in revenue (more than that if you assume the deal is going up in value even if no changes are made)
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, at least in the short term. Maryland & Rutgers joined in 2014. They didn't get full media rights shares until 2020-2021.
 

The thing with Maryland and Rutgers, to what I have read (some time ago), is that it allowed the BTN to get put on basic channel tiers/bundles of cable systems in Maryland and NJ as well as some communities in surrounding areas like DC, Philly, and NYC.

That was (still is?) worth big $$$ to BTN.

I don't know if that type of model or way of thinking would apply anymore, if say the adds were Virginia and North Carolina. It wouldn't be those mind you, those are ACC for life.
 




The Big Ten East has sort of the SEC effect. Just because the best team(s) happen to be in the East - Ohio State mainly with perhaps Michigan if they can build off of this year, it does not mean the East top to bottom is better than the West.

Similar to Alabama and Georgia - just because they are two of the best teams in the country it does not mean the entire SEC is good.


Two things can be true -
1) No one in the Big Ten West is as good as Ohio State
2) From top to bottom the East and West are fairly comparable - (2021: West 11-10 vs. East; East 10-11 vs. West)
 

MNfootballfan said:
The Big Ten East has sort of the SEC effect. Just because the best team(s) happen to be in the East - Ohio State mainly with perhaps Michigan if they can build off of this year, it does not mean the East top to bottom is better than the West.

Similar to Alabama and Georgia - just because they are two of the best teams in the country it does not mean the entire SEC is good.


Two things can be true -
1) No one in the Big Ten West is as good as Ohio State
2) From top to bottom the East and West are fairly comparable - (2021: West 11-10 vs. East; East 10-11 vs. West)
Click to expand...
Wonder what the all-time East/West record is, since 2014 (?). Also wonder how many East losses have come from Ohio St, Mich, Mich St, and Penn St, vs IU, Maryland, and Rutgers.
 

OSU AD says:
No new divisions, either same divisions or no divisions
No scheduling agreement with “alliance”
Probably staying at 9 games
 

Some guy said:
OSU AD says:
No new divisions, either same divisions or no divisions
No scheduling agreement with “alliance”
Probably staying at 9 games
Click to expand...
Ultimately this is how I think Divisions or Not will play out:

IF BCS modifies to the Big 10 Champion getting an AutoBid then Divisions are OUT.
IF BCS stays the same or expands but still all At Large then Divisions remain IN.

As for 9 games I guess I am good with it, though I was intrigued with some visits by Pac 12 and ACC schools, especially if they were replacing games vs Western Illinois, Miami (OH) or New Mexico State. Not as intrigued if they were replacing games against any other Big 10 foe. Must not have been any interest from TV partners to kick more dough for those matchups.
 



Some guy said:
OSU AD says:
No new divisions, either same divisions or no divisions
No scheduling agreement with “alliance”
Probably staying at 9 games
Click to expand...
But that's one of the main points of the alliance, and without hearing other ADs agreeing with this I would assume they get overruled by the rest of the conference.

I can see their thought process though, the floated idea is 1 vs 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2 vs 2, etc. meaning OSU would suddenly have 2 games that are probably more difficult than the non-conf games they would have scheduled otherwise. Especially if Clemson makes a comeback. That would in turn potentially lead to more losses and a more difficult road to the CFP.

Most of the rest of the conference though, as far as I am aware, would be happy with the boost in SoS without having to deal with the logistics of figuring out a home and home agreement.
 

Taji34 said:
But that's one of the main points of the alliance, and without hearing other ADs agreeing with this I would assume they get overruled by the rest of the conference.

I can see their thought process though, the floated idea is 1 vs 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2 vs 2, etc. meaning OSU would suddenly have 2 games that are probably more difficult than the non-conf games they would have scheduled otherwise. Especially if Clemson makes a comeback. That would in turn potentially lead to more losses and a more difficult road to the CFP.

Most of the rest of the conference though, as far as I am aware, would be happy with the boost in SoS without having to deal with the logistics of figuring out a home and home agreement.
Click to expand...
Well I’m just telling you what the OsU said in the press conference I watched.
He said the conference is most likely staying at 9 after discussing 8 and they aren’t going to commit to an alliance game every year and sacrifice opportunities to play teams from the SEC and independents. Specifically mentioned Notre dame and Alabama

If you think the alliances main point was anything other than a “voting block” that they can’t legally say due to it technically being collusion you’re missing the first through the trees.
 

Ope3 said:
Ultimately this is how I think Divisions or Not will play out:

IF BCS modifies to the Big 10 Champion getting an AutoBid then Divisions are OUT.
IF BCS stays the same or expands but still all At Large then Divisions remain IN.

As for 9 games I guess I am good with it, though I was intrigued with some visits by Pac 12 and ACC schools, especially if they were replacing games vs Western Illinois, Miami (OH) or New Mexico State. Not as intrigued if they were replacing games against any other Big 10 foe. Must not have been any interest from TV partners to kick more dough for those matchups.
Click to expand...
Could be, but I actually think in more season than not a 1 vs 2 game reduces your chances of two teams in the playoff or keep than the same rather than increase them.

take an 8 team playoff last year with all at largest.
Michigan vs Iowa (big ten gets two if Michigan wins, 2 if Iowa wins)
Michigan vs Ohio State (big ten gets two if Ohio state wins, probably 2 if Michigan wins but if they get pounded again ohio state might fall down from 6)

12 team all at larges
Michigan vs Iowa (2 if Michigan wins, including one bye and one home game, 3 if Iowa wins including at least 2 home games+byes )
Michigan vs Ohio state (2 if Michigan wins, one bye maybe one home game, 2 if Ohio state wins, probably no byes but two home games)

The upside of 1-3 or 1-4 is more than the upside of 1-2
The downside of 1-2 is worse than the downside of 1-4 in an expanded playoff.


the big 12 literally ruined their playoff chances by modeling 1-2 and making ok state beat Baylor again (probably wouldn’t have mattered as Ok state might have been behind cinci even with a win)


.

If there are auto bids for conference champions makes it even more obvious 1 vs 2 when they have already played is worse. Because you are guaranteeing your best at large bid has an extra loss regardless of of wins the game.


Money is the only argument to do away with divisions. 1 vs 2 when they have already played hurts your chances
 

Some guy said:
Could be, but I actually think in more season than not a 1 vs 2 game reduces your chances of two teams in the playoff or keep than the same rather than increase them.

take an 8 team playoff last year with all at largest.
Michigan vs Iowa (big ten gets two if Michigan wins, 2 if Iowa wins)
Michigan vs Ohio State (big ten gets two if Ohio state wins, probably 2 if Michigan wins but if they get pounded again ohio state might fall down from 6)

12 team all at larges
Michigan vs Iowa (2 if Michigan wins, including one bye and one home game, 3 if Iowa wins including at least 2 home games+byes )
Michigan vs Ohio state (2 if Michigan wins, one bye maybe one home game, 2 if Ohio state wins, probably no byes but two home games)

The upside of 1-3 or 1-4 is more than the upside of 1-2
The downside of 1-2 is worse than the downside of 1-4 in an expanded playoff.


the big 12 literally ruined their playoff chances by modeling 1-2 and making ok state beat Baylor again (probably wouldn’t have mattered as Ok state might have been behind cinci even with a win)


.

If there are auto bids for conference champions makes it even more obvious 1 vs 2 when they have already played is worse. Because you are guaranteeing your best at large bid has an extra loss regardless of of wins the game.


Money is the only argument to do away with divisions. 1 vs 2 when they have already played hurts your chances
Click to expand...
I don't disagree that No Divisions could hurt the At Large chances for multiple bids.

I think the pull of Divisionless (with Auto BCS Bids) is to get at worst either the #1 or #2 conference team in the field, with likely a Top 4 seed. Whether or not there are byes or home games tied in would also influence the decision making, as well as payouts for advancing.

In a Division set up, say there is a 4 loss team (including NonConference games) going against a 1 or 2 loss team. 4 loss team pulls the upset, gets a low BCS seed on the road and gets bounced right away, while the Title loser likely wouldn't even make the field.

Again without knowing the BCS format, hard to say which is best or what the goal is of the Conference members.
 

It all comes down to TV $$$, in the end.

I speculate that TV partners said something like "if you replace the 9th Big Ten game with an Alliance game vs PAC and ACC ... those are less valuable games. Fewer people will tune in. Therefore, your money will decrease."

And *poof*, so much for that idea.

Now, I always thought of it as 8 Big Ten + 2 Alliance ... but that would mean they'd be going to 10 P5 games per team minimum. I suppose they don't want to be the first conference doing that.


If a #1 vs #2 ranked Big Ten conference championship game is worth more money to the TV partners, well I suppose they'll go that way too.

Even though, as some guy said, it potentially devalues the interest and ratings of a lot of other games, if the West isn't even likely to get a team in the championship game.
 

Some guy said:
Well I’m just telling you what the OsU said in the press conference I watched.
He said the conference is most likely staying at 9 after discussing 8 and they aren’t going to commit to an alliance game every year and sacrifice opportunities to play teams from the SEC and independents. Specifically mentioned Notre dame and Alabama

If you think the alliances main point was anything other than a “voting block” that they can’t legally say due to it technically being collusion you’re missing the first through the trees.
Click to expand...
I think the other "idea" of it was so that they wouldn't have to raid each other for new member schools and could be somewhat immune from conference realignment.

But if they can't even commit to play one game against each other ... that idea could be out the window. $$$ rules the day, in the end.
 

Gophers_4life said:
It all comes down to TV $$$, in the end.

I speculate that TV partners said something like "if you replace the 9th Big Ten game with an Alliance game vs PAC and ACC ... those are less valuable games. Fewer people will tune in. Therefore, your money will decrease."

And *poof*, so much for that idea.

Now, I always thought of it as 8 Big Ten + 2 Alliance ... but that would mean they'd be going to 10 P5 games per team minimum. I suppose they don't want to be the first conference doing that.


If a #1 vs #2 ranked Big Ten conference championship game is worth more money to the TV partners, well I suppose they'll go that way too.

Even though, as some guy said, it potentially devalues the interest and ratings of a lot of other games, if the West isn't even likely to get a team in the championship game.
Click to expand...
Alliance teams are already playing 10 P5 games.
 

Gophers_4life said:
I think the other "idea" of it was so that they wouldn't have to raid each other for new member schools and could be somewhat immune from conference realignment.

But if they can't even commit to play one game against each other ... that idea could be out the window. $$$ rules the day, in the end.
Click to expand...
Yeah. The only real expansion for the big ten that could happen is big names.
I could see a USC, Stanford, Oregon, Washington addition. Maybe that’s how you capture the most viewers with the


That might actually increase the payouts. The rumored payouts of the next deal are going to be 1 billion/14 or around 70 million

So to expand to 16 and break even, the two need to add 140 million in additional revenue to break even.
to add 4 you need to add 280 million in additional revenue to break even.
**The entire Pac 12 media deal is worth around 250 million per year**

the more I think of expansion the more I think it isn’t possible. The TV numbers for the big ten are too big to add without reducing the size of the pie pieces.

a better way of increasing revenue for the big ten would be to have BTN buy up tier 2 and tier 3 games from lesser conferences. Brand it Pac 12 on BTN, Big 12 on BTN, american on BTN. They might not sell, but if they did at least it would be net positive in revenue.


the way the Ohio state AD talked, I don’t think they change divisions. The regular season conference games are so valuable they’re going to forgo marquee non conference games + some lame non conference games to keep a 9 game schedule. Which tells me the Big Ten Title game is far secondary as the value added to the TV deal than the 63 conference games and 30-40 non conference games. It is more important than any individual game but not important enough to mess with the 63 to make that one better.
 

Gophers_4life said:
Even though, as some guy said, it potentially devalues the interest and ratings of a lot of other games, if the West isn't even likely to get a team in the championship game.
Click to expand...
it is kind of like how MLB added another wildcard.
that wildcard adds a little value in post season revenue…but the real reason to add that game is it adds value to a ton of regular season games by keeping an extra 5-8 teams in contention into late august and September. The real revenue gained is in the regular season tv deals because there is higher likelihood of a team still being in the playoff hunt.

that is why I don’t think they change divisions. If it is all about revenue…


MI - OSU almost outdrew SEC title game…but if they rematch the next week it gets a lower rating (even if it means the big ten title game gets a slightly higher rating)
MN - WI was the 4th rated game week 13…not true if there isn’t a big ten west
NE - Wi 4th rated game week 12…not true if there isn’t a big ten west
 

more from the Gene Smith press conference:

While Smith’s preference is for the Big Ten to continue playing nine conference games – and he indicated that’s what the Big Ten’s TV partners want as well – he is open to the possibility of the Big Ten abandoning divisions. That would mean the teams with the two best records in the entire conference would both make the Big Ten Championship Game, rather than just one team from each division, while it would also likely mean playing every team in the conference at least twice every four years, which Smith likes because it would give players the opportunity to go to every Big Ten stadium over the course of a four-year career.

Smith said there have not been any conversations about shuffling the divisions, so he expects that the Big Ten will either maintain its current East and West divisional structure or eliminate divisions entirely. He expects a final decision on divisions and whether the Big Ten will continue to play nine conference games to be made during league meetings in May.
 

PMWinSTP said:
Alliance teams are already playing 10 P5 games.
Click to expand...
4 out of the 40 Alliance teams do play 10 P5 guaranteed per year, with 9 conf + 1 P5 non-conf.

Iowa plays Iowa St, Utah plays BYU, and Stanford and USC play Notre Dame, annually.

Iowa St also plays 10, since the Big XII plays 9 conf games, but they aren't in the Alliance. BYU will start being the same.


4 more teams in the Alliance (ACC) play an annual non-conf games, but they only play 8 conf games.
 
Last edited:

Some guy said:
MI - OSU almost outdrew SEC title game…but if they rematch the next week it gets a lower rating (even if it means the big ten title game gets a slightly higher rating)
MN - WI was the 4th rated game week 13…not true if there isn’t a big ten west
NE - Wi 4th rated game week 12…not true if there isn’t a big ten west
Click to expand...
This makes too much obvious sense.

Which is why I worry then that they will in fact make the change.
 


Ope3 said:
If the TV partner is shelling out $1B couldn't they dictate OSU-Mich be played in prime time in October?
Click to expand...
This makes sense to me too ... but a lot of things can make sense on paper, then you get a huge emotional uproar because tradition is changing.
 

Ope3 said:
If the TV partner is shelling out $1B couldn't they dictate OSU-Mich be played in prime time in October?
Click to expand...
Not if the TV partner had to bid against a 990 million bid from a different partner Who said you could keep it the last week of the year

details like that are part of the negotiations
 

The TV partners want the highest possible ratings. That is their only goal. They have a lot of smart people -- I would assume -- who study and try to model what gives them that.
 

Gophers_4life said:
4 out of the 40 Alliance teams do play 10 P5 guaranteed per year, with 9 conf + 1 P5 non-conf.

Iowa plays Iowa St, Utah plays BYU, and Stanford and USC play Notre Dame, annually.

Iowa St also plays 10, since the Big XII plays 9 conf games, but they aren't in the Alliance. BYU will start being the same.


4 more teams in the Alliance (ACC) play an annual non-conf games, but they only play 8 conf games.
Click to expand...
Almost all the others have been routinely scheduling additional P5 games to play 10 per year. Not guarenteed, but it has been the norm in recent years.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom