Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Bill Stewart Dead From Apparent Heart Attack

Big Ten and Pac-12 Agree to Elaborate Cash Grab

Say you're a conference commissioner who has a network that could use some more quality inventory. The most obvious avenue you can take is expanding your league, but geography, tradition, and change-averse university presidents get in the way of that. What can you do to make it so that you don't have to televise body bag games for the entire month of September?

You find another commissioner in the same boat as you and set up a scheduling arrangement. The Big Ten and Pac-12, both in that very boat, have announced today that they'll set up a non-conference series with each other beginning in 2017.

The plan began this summer on the Big Ten's side, with Jim Delany attempting to figure out a way to get some of the advantages of conference expansion without actually expanding the conference. It's not difficult to figure out why he wanted to go outside the box.

The conference has a very specific template for its membership: generally large state schools with a specialty in football and membership in the AAU. Only 100+ year members Indiana and Northwestern don't exactly fit in that mold, and its two most recent additions of Penn State and Nebraska fit it perfectly (before NU lost its AAU membership, that is). If the league was to compromise on any of those factors, it would pretty much only be for the private, non-AAU Notre Dame.

The only schools that meet all of those requirements and make any kind of geographic sense are Iowa State, Pitt, and Rutgers. None of those are national football powerhouses, and Pitt and Iowa State are redundant geographically anyway. Kansas and Maryland are borderline, but neither is valuable enough to add to the conference without Notre Dame. Plus, Maryland probably wouldn't jump right away at Big Ten membership as a charter ACC member.

As for the Pac-12, Larry Scott already tried going to 14 and failed when his conference presidents rejected adding the two Oklahoma schools. That attempt came after trying to go to 16 and failing last year. He's definitely open to new ideas, probably more so than any other BCS conference commissioner. Plus, his league can't make the economics of expansion work without the Texas and Oklahoma schools that are out of his reach.

I can't help but see this as another step towards concentrating power, and therefore money, in college football.

Star-divide

With these conferences not expanding by taking schools from the Big 12 and ACC, it means that teams currently outside the BCS leagues won't have opportunities to move up as those leagues replace members. The Big 12 will keep its power status as long as Texas and Oklahoma stick together after all, and the ACC will stay up there as long as the Orange Bowl is satisfied with it.

This agreement also nips the early season neutral site games in the bud to a degree. Oregon played LSU in Dallas this year, and Michigan will play Alabama there next year. We're all familiar with the game in Atlanta too. By bringing signature non-conference games in house, the Big Ten and Pac-12 make sure that they get all the profits from them and cut out middlemen like, say, the Chick-fil-A bowl committee that runs the Atlanta game.

Speaking of cutting out middlemen, Delany said that the partnership could lead to the conferences' networks sponsoring bowl games of their own. That's a big deal because it makes no sense that colleges allow sometimes corrupt bowl committees to siphon off postseason revenue. In particular, schools get soaked on ticket guarantees that most have no hope of making money on when secondary market tickets go for much less money. Bringing bowl games in house not only can make them profitable trips for everyone, but it eliminates needless waste from the existing bowl structure.

Finally, cupcakes have been getting very expensive of late. Non-power conference teams from I-A have regularly been getting guarantees of close to $1 million for a couple years now. All of these games between the Big Ten and Pac-12 shrink demand for cupcakes by up to 12 per year (the agreement replaces the Big Ten's plan to go to nine conference games, so that demand loss is all on the Pac-12 side). The series therefore reduces the transfer of money in guarantees and TV dollars from power conferences to the non-power conferences by millions every season.

I wonder if Jim Delany pines for a time when there are no such things as cupcake games anymore. The economic structure of the sport won't lead to that soon, but I could see him wanting that as the ultimate end game of all this. He's famously snippy about the non-power teams asking more more access to the biggest bowls and the pot of money that goes with them, and I'll bet he'd be perfectly fine with a future where the top of I-A breaks off from the rest and leaves the Boise States of the world behind.

The SEC is not likely to create some kind of similar agreement soon. It might look into one after starting a conference network, but such a network doesn't exist yet. As a 14-team conference, it only has one other league to look to anyway: the soon-to-be 14-team ACC. However, several SEC schools (Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina) already have rivalries with ACC schools.

Either those rivalries would have to end, and that would involve three state legislatures having their say in the matter most likely, or those three schools just never join the rotation. Either way is messy, and the ACC would be the clear winner as the SEC is worth far more to TV networks than the ACC is. The only leagues on par with the SEC in that regard are the Big Ten and Pac-12, and they have prior commitments now.

As long as the BCS as we know it exists, even a permutation without AQ status, the SEC will still have the inside track at the national championship. Nothing about this deal will magically make the Big Ten's and Pac-12's reputations exceed the SEC's, and the extra tough game will could mean an extra loss for half of the best teams in each conference. The plan, as stated now, is to match the top with the top and bottom with the bottom of the two leagues.

Winning national championships is what the SEC is all about these days, so I don't foresee an immediate reaction. However, this deal will likely extend the lead of the Big Ten and Pac-12 in the overall revenue department as long as the SEC doesn't have its own network. The conference-owned network is proving to be a disruptive innovation in the world of college sports, so don't expect this accord between Delany and Scott to be the final shock to the system.

Comment 33 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Not sure this part is right
The plan, as stated now, is to match the top with the top and bottom with the bottom of the two leagues.

Ted Miller chatted with Larry Scott directly, and they said specifically that:

Starting in 2017, there will be a full slate of home-and-home series between the conferences. Yes, that means Ohio State will play in Pullman and Michigan will go to Corvallis. And vice versa. This isn’t just about matching the big stadium teams and the smaller stadium teams.

Sounds like they want a round robin of some sort.

by Sahr on Dec 28, 2011 6:37 PM EST reply actions  

Thanks

I got some bad intel somewhere along the way on that.

Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2

by Year2 on Dec 28, 2011 7:05 PM EST up reply actions  

Then again, maybe you're right

On determining the matchups, Rittenberg said:

“We haven’t involved television and I don’t expect we would,” Delany said. “We may ask an opinion, but like the ACC-Big Ten Challenge, television is integral to putting that together. … Most importantly, it will be home-away-neutral, and I think there will be movement of games and opponents. But the notion of competitive equity would probably be the No. 1 aspect.”

It sounds like they want some level of competition, but also to be able to tweak it for competition. They are focusing on home-and-homes, though, so maybe they’d match up teams with similar recent levels of success. Sounds like they still have some things to figure out.

by Sahr on Dec 28, 2011 7:35 PM EST up reply actions  

Two of the top 3 leagues in the sport striking a big deal

This isn’t just some grab. This is really going to strengthen both leagues and the starpower of the OOC games. It’s an awesome move. Can’t wait to see ASU visit some more midwest locations.

Community Manager at SB Nation
support@sbnation.com
House Of Sparky

by Cory Williams on Dec 28, 2011 7:14 PM EST up reply actions  

I agree it's an awesome move

I think the headline is incredibly cynical. Sure, they stand to make a fortune off of it, but it will also raise the profile of both conferences. When everyone else is seeing their team steamroll Middle Tennessee State and it getting barely more than a mention on Sports Center, Oregon will squaring off against Ohio State and USC will be playing Michigan. Sounds awesome even for casual fans. The best teams will rise and another game isn’t likely to stop them.

by Nico2.0 on Dec 28, 2011 7:22 PM EST up reply actions  

It's good for all inolved

Even the crappy teams get a decent matchup with a BCS opponent. I’m an Oregon State fan, and I’ll take a game against Indiana, Purdue or Northwestern every year over yet another game against a Mountain West, WAC, or Big Sky opponent. And on the rare occasion that an Ohio State or Michigan comes to town, it’s a huge deal.

by Sahr on Dec 28, 2011 7:30 PM EST up reply actions  

Consequences

And the result of raising the profile is… (drumroll) more money!

I too hate I-A vs. I-AA games and have always doubted that tougher schedules necessarily knock teams out of national title contention. Every one of the SEC teams in the recent national title streak has faced a top 15 schedule according to Sagarin, and that will hold true if LSU wins again (Bama’s is ranked 24 at present; don’t know if another shot at LSU gets them into the top 15 after the BCSCG).

However, this is all a money making proposition. This is about more good inventory for the Big Ten Network and Pac-12 Networks and preserving those leagues’ places near the top of college athletics. Having a private label network signals that you’re all about the dollars because it cuts out the TV middlemen to a degree (or entirely in the Pac’s case). Remaining near the top ensures that your TV properties remain lucrative.

This is not about the athletes, or else they’d be getting better compensated for the physical risks they take. This is not about students, because sports interfere with classes by some amount. This is about maximizing revenue streams, pure and simple.

Team Speed Kills -- SBNation's SEC Blog
If you're so inclined, follow me @Year2

by Year2 on Dec 28, 2011 10:57 PM EST up reply actions  

You say "this is abut maximizing revenue streams" like it's a bad thing.

Football pays the bills for the schools’ other athletics programs, and the extra money being generated is taken away from 1. cupcake games and 2. bowl committees & stadium owners. And this is supposed to be a negative?

Be the change you wish to see in the world.

by Semicorrect on Dec 28, 2011 11:11 PM EST up reply actions  

Didn't say it was a grab.

Both conferences needed something so they reached out to each other.

by Aaron.50cal on Dec 28, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions  

I think its a great move for them

It’ll generate a lot of buzz. Quite frankly, I’m jealous.

by Mark Mandingo on Dec 28, 2011 7:24 PM EST via mobile reply actions  

I don't think this matters at all to USC
Finally, cupcakes have been getting very expensive of late. Non-power conference teams from I-A have regularly been getting guarantees of close to $1 million for a couple years now.

We have NEVER played a non BCS team. We are the only team in the country to schedule all 12 opponents this past season from BCS AQ conferences.

ANYONE ANYTIME ANYWHERE

_________________________________________________________________________‎
"You can't sanction heart, and you can't sanction the will to win" - USC QB, Matt Barkley

by WE ARE SC on Dec 28, 2011 7:38 PM EST reply actions  

BCS FBS

_________________________________________________________________________‎
"You can't sanction heart, and you can't sanction the will to win" - USC QB, Matt Barkley

by WE ARE SC on Dec 28, 2011 7:40 PM EST up reply actions  

There are plenty of cupcakes in FBS

Sun Belt, most WAC teams, MAC, Army, most MWC teams….

I’m not familiar enough with USC’s schedule to know who they play year in and year out, but avoiding FCS teams is only one part of avoiding cupcakes.

by AllTideUp on Dec 29, 2011 9:50 AM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

Some FBS teams are not much better than FCS, some worse. USC does schedule games against MWC and WAC teams, home and home. The Trojans are one of only a few teams that have NEVER scheduled a FCS (Div 1AA) team.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________‎
"The 2012 USC team has some serious unfinished business to attend to and I intend to play a part in it." - USC QB, Matt Barkley

by WE ARE SC on Dec 29, 2011 6:15 PM EST up reply actions  

Certainly commendable

I wish they’d ban FBS schools from playing FCS schools.

by Nico2.0 on Dec 28, 2011 7:41 PM EST up reply actions   1 recs

OR

just treat it as a non game. Like a non-points race in NASCAR

_________________________________________________________________________‎
"You can't sanction heart, and you can't sanction the will to win" - USC QB, Matt Barkley

by WE ARE SC on Dec 28, 2011 7:47 PM EST up reply actions  

Agreed

Nothing but bad things can come from those games. Injuries, close games affecting your team’s respect, or God forbid, an actual loss (Michigan, Oregon State, etc). The only good thing that comes from those games is $$$ at the ticket booth.

by Sahr on Dec 28, 2011 7:58 PM EST up reply actions  

I also hate those games as a season ticketholder

Not only can I NEVER sell them for what they cost, I even sometimes have a hard time getting people to go with me for free.

by Nico2.0 on Dec 28, 2011 8:02 PM EST up reply actions  

Two different philosophies

You’re seeing the B1G and Pac-12 increase the level of competition to increase revenues/interest during the regular season. It’s not a coincidence that the series starts in 2017, the first year of the next (yet un-bid-upon) B1G TV deal.

You’re seeing the SEC keep patsy non-con schedules (rarely more than 1 AQ opponent in non-con – which makes LSU’s 2011 season all the more of an outlier) in order to increase the likelihood of perfect seasons and a trip to the BCS title game.

As a football fan, I know which I prefer.

"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Patrick Vint

"I thought it was laughable when you first put it up, but you were obviously smarter than me." - PurdueMatt

http://www.offtackleempire.com

by Bama Hawkeye on Dec 28, 2011 7:54 PM EST reply actions   1 recs

The BIG still has 5 more solid years of playing patsy games as well.

What makes you think the SEC wont change things up? Two different philosophies huh? I would say whatever the SEC is doing is working, considering how successful they have been. It would seem that the BIG and PAC are the ones that needed the change of pace.

by Aaron.50cal on Dec 28, 2011 8:36 PM EST up reply actions  

Definitions

You’re defining success by championships. The Universities are defining success by revenue. In that way, the B1G still has it over the SEC (and looks to be increasing its margin).

"Bama Hawkeye, you know, the Iowa blogger who actually uses reason and analysis." - Patrick Vint

"I thought it was laughable when you first put it up, but you were obviously smarter than me." - PurdueMatt

http://www.offtackleempire.com

by Bama Hawkeye on Dec 28, 2011 11:41 PM EST up reply actions  

I think he's getting you and me confused.

I said championships were more important than scheduling interesting OOC games, which is not the same as an increasing revenue stream.

I would argue that the SEC can afford to schedule patsy OOC games and continue winning more championships as a result because the league as a whole is so attractive to viewers that their intra-league games generate increasing streams of revenue.

The B1G has lots of games like Indiana-Minnesota and Purdue-Northwestern that nobody wants to watch outside of those schools’ local fan bases. The SEC just doesn’t have many of those weak matchups that nobody in the whole damn world cares about. Hell, even the Egg Bowl draws a rating just as good as most B1G games between teams not named Ohio State, Michigan, or Penn State.

Editor, Dawg Sports.

Go Dawgs!

by vineyarddawg on Dec 29, 2011 2:00 AM EST up reply actions  

Hold the Phone....

Indiana and Minnesota aren’t FCS teams yet?

by Aaron.50cal on Dec 29, 2011 2:16 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree 100%, Bama Hawkeye.

I would prefer national championships to interesting OOC matchups, too.

(Yes, I know you were implying the opposite, but as a fan whose team has played at Arizona State, Oklahoma State, and Colorado over the last decade, I think you should go with me on this one.)

Editor, Dawg Sports.

Go Dawgs!

by vineyarddawg on Dec 28, 2011 10:12 PM EST up reply actions  

How often do Pac 12 and Big Ten teams play more than 1 AQ team in a season?

Pretty sure the preseason is not littered with outstanding OOC games regardless of what conference we are talking about….unless of course you are referring to the MAC or the Sun Belt? Their OOC schedules are quite strong.

And do we have info yet on whether or not this partnership is going to keep the Pac 12 and Big Ten from playing other BCS league schools in OOC games on a regular basis. It’s one thing to replace a cupcake on your schedule with a new BCS team. It’s another to replace a BCS team with a BCS team.

by AllTideUp on Dec 29, 2011 9:56 AM EST up reply actions  

I can't, nor do I care

to speck for the rest of the conference. I can tell USC has routinely done so, and if you want to throw in ND we have every season for as long as I can remember.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________‎
"The 2012 USC team has some serious unfinished business to attend to and I intend to play a part in it." - USC QB, Matt Barkley

by WE ARE SC on Dec 29, 2011 6:23 PM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, the ND/USC game is a classic match up.

And I know USC plays some other BCS teams from time to time as well. I know they’ve had home and homes with Auburn and Arkansas in the last 10 years. I can’t think of any other match ups like that, but I don’t keep up enough with USC’s schedule enough to remember unless they happened to play an SEC team.

I wouldn’t mind a home and home between Bama and USC.

by AllTideUp on Dec 30, 2011 9:41 AM EST up reply actions  

We did play Auburn and Arkansas

We also had series against Virgina and tOSU since those. Bama would be a great home and home, I would love to visit Tuscaloosa. I would travel to see the the Cardnal and Gold Between the Hedges and on Rocky Top also.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________‎
"The 2012 USC team has some serious unfinished business to attend to and I intend to play a part in it." - USC QB, Matt Barkley

by WE ARE SC on Dec 30, 2011 2:08 PM EST up reply actions  

I don't think a potential partnership of the SEC and the ACC is out of the question.

There will definitely be some evaluation in the SEC office over this, but I don’t think the annual rivalries between some of these SEC and ACC teams would be a roadblock to a partnership at all. If anything, I think it could help it along.

UGA, Carolina, and Florida wouldn’t have to trade in their annual rivals to engage in a partnership. This type of a deal is completely negotiable as I don’t think there are any NCAA rules mandating certain stipulations here. UGA, Carolina, and Florida can keep their annual rivals while the other teams in the league can rotate between the other teams in the ACC. Vandy is already playing Wake regularly although I’m not sure that is a long term plan.

The SEC may be wanting to go to 9 conference games and being that UGA, Carolina, and Florida are already tied into regular OOC rivals that may have been something they complained about or something that would have prevented more strong OOC opponents in the future for those teams. An interesting compromise would be a scheduling partnership with the ACC that allows those 3 to keep playing who they are playing within the new agreement.

Where I think this could really be beneficial is if the partnership extends to all sports especially basketball. A slate of SEC/ACC match ups in basketball annually would bring in some solid TV revenue. It probably wouldn’t be an even deal compared to the TV revenue created by playing SEC football teams, but if it is an overall increase in revenue then it might not be a bad move.

by AllTideUp on Dec 29, 2011 10:16 AM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about the SEC

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recent FanPosts

Gator-f__custom__small
FSU/Clemson to the Big 12 Rumors: Here's the Deal
Small
14 team Basketball Schedule
4c06a6adb42798a5c08d712c620047ec_small
Why Can't This Work

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managers

Gabalogo2_small cocknfire

Gator-f__custom__small Year2

Authors

Kleph_logo_copy_small kleph