UCLA and USC WILL Join the B1G in 2024

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,022
2,501
187
42
www.myspace.com
Not trying to argue what teams to take with this statement, but what do y’all think is about to happen to Notre Dame under full Big Ten membership?

What is a yearly 7-5 Notre Dame worth in the long run? Check out some of their NBC ratings lately…
I've elaborated on this in the past, but what makes a brand good goes beyond just recent success. In the case of Virginia Tech for example, virtually all their brand value was in their success under Beamer, so Beamer goes away, success goes away, brand value diminishes significantly. I predicted this years ago by the way. This isn't the case for Notre Dame and USC because they've built up their brand over a much, much longer period of time.

Think about it like this, do people stop wearing Yankees or Lakers gear when they weren't doing as well? They did stop wearing Miami Hurricanes gear though, so some brands are tied more closely to recent success. This isn't, as I've alluded to before just about fans and it's not just about ratings. It's about advertising dollars, it's about media, political power, it's about negotiating billion dollar mega deals, it's about playoffs and so on. Notre Dame has so much power they've had a seat at every table by themselves.

What is Northwestern’s shoe deal worth? Chicago is the 3rd largest city behind LA

What is Miami’s shoe deal? 3 million just in Broward and Dade

Dallas has Baylor - what is Baylor’s shoe deal?

What about Temple? Philly is a Top 10 market?

If the LA example holds I would think all are bigger than Bama

Otherwise the LA example is unique and not applicable as a rule.
You'll note I didn't mention those other places and I never advocated for Miami. You just need to know where the value lies, then you answer the questions about why it's different some places. I'm already jumping to the end, I'm saying places that hold more value.

For instance, Notre Dame's shoe deal is 9 million per year. North Carolina's shoe deal is 9.5 million. Clemson's for the record is only 5.8 million, even though they signed it at a more favorable time (2018 peak of their success) than Alabama.

So you can contemplate why UCLA's shoe deal is worth more than Clemson's and why both North Carolina and Notre Dame are worth so much more but it's all related to factors I've been trying to explain.

Clemson is simply worth less. That's all there is to it. Now, ESPN only cares about their ratings under the current deal, so they absolutely could lead the SEC astray, but I'm just pointing out what programs are more valuable.
 
Last edited:

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
31,682
20,097
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Frankly I cannot get anymore excited about Clemson than I can North Carolina, from a football standpoint.

Florida State and Miami been rumored SEC expansion targets since the late 80s so some of this talk may simply be regurgitations from back then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimsonaudio

CB4

Hall of Fame
Aug 8, 2011
6,244
5,106
187
Birmingham, AL
Use to be about “footprint” and “viewership” (eyes on the product). Not any longer. Finebaum mentioned this on his show Friday. He talked how he and others were brought in to pitch “the SEC network” to the networks and cable providers years ago. With streaming services that has gone out the window. This is about product positioning and desirable “match up” week in and week out. Oh and money…let’s not forget the money.

Look at Clemson and the contract they were stuck with through 2036 with the ACC network. The school down the road in Columbia is set to make twice as much or more over that period. . That can’t sit well for the “Barn with a lake” folks.

The next several weeks aren’t going to be a about “conference mergers”.Any program with what they consider leverage is going to run for their best deal. In other words, at the school dance they’ll try to match up with the prettiest girl available. The rest will be begging their sister to set them up or standing in the stag line.

I don’t know if I’m going to like the end result, but it is going to be interesting to watch.
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,559
30,941
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
There is a lot we agree with on general and I think we both have a lot of negativity about the direction things are headed. I've been as resistant to some of the changes to college football as anyone here. Sorry for using your post as an excuse to elaborate on a couple of things.

I'm not trying to argue, just making point than anything else. I covered some of this last page, but it is worth reiterating that the value of markets does not lie entirely on the enthusiasm of the fans. There's no question for instance that college football fans in Tuscaloosa are more engaged than fans in LA. However, the LA fans, even on a per capita basis are still much more valuable. The simplest way to explain this is if a bunch of people in LA start wearing Adidas it could change the fortunes of the company. If a bunch of people in Tuscaloosa? It won't really change anything.

So, the value of the LA market lies in some ways in just how hard it is to crack. If you do it though, you can make billions. So there's always going to be more money flowing in to try to reach them, even if they aren't nearly as enthusiastic. Honestly I'm always disappointed when I'm at an Alabama game and I see what horrible sponsors they have for everything. But, it's Tuscaloosa, what do you expect? Just look at the corporate sponsors for USC football! It's better than the SEC's sponsors.

Brand matters as well, but in a lot of ways the major market aspect is the flip side of that. I would add that you could include the size of a new state you are entering as a third criteria and rate potential additions according to their brand, markets, and if it's a new, large state. It's over simplification but for instance USC is a 3/3, Virginia is a 2/3, NC based on their overall brand is a 3/3 and Clemson is a 1/3.

Thing is you don't want another Nebraska. That's the thing to avoid. Brand is the one thing that can change the fastest, Clemson wasn't a major brand not that long ago, and is Nebraska still a major brand now, or a 0/3 (negative asset)? Either way though, it's about added value and good markets add value.


Well in my previous post I delved into how much state lines matter. Washington DC is a special case though, but I've seen all sorts of claims in terms of what school can reach them. In truth it's Maryland territory, but very tepid support even for Maryland. Really it's just another example of how much state lines matter, because the favorite team in Washington DC only enjoys 15% support and that's just about the lowest you'll see anywhere.

To your general point, the population of Virginia is 8.5 million. It isn't though, just about watching Virginia play. That's where I think a lot of people exaggerate the value of the particular school's brand. It's about getting them to watch your conference play! I'm not nearly as big on Virginia as I am on North Carolina, but I do very much believe in the SEC's ability to dominate territory they enter. So I do think once they enter a state they're going to increase the overall popularity of not just that school but the popularity of the conference in that state.

An easy example of this would be that I've watched more Missouri games since they joined the conference than I ever did in all the years leading up to their joining the conference. Why would I care about Missouri? They weren't in the SEC, virtually every game they played didn't matter at all to me. A lot more of them do matter now and I end up watching a lot more of them.

So, why would a Virginia fan watch Alabama more if Virginia is in the conference? It's not just because Virginia is playing Alabama. They might watch Alabama play Tennessee because it influences the standings. Or they might pick another SEC team to become their second favorite and start following them (in particular in years that Virginia is bad, which would be most of them). Or may be they just become SEC fans in general because Virginia is in the conference.

The point though is this never was about just watching Virginia games. It's about getting people in Virginia to watch more SEC games...
Before you fall in love with all those eyeballs, you should look at their average attendances, which are a damn good indicator of community interest. UCLA averaged just under 47K and USC averaged just over 56K last year. At one time, I thought UMO would turn out to be a good addition to the SEC. Then people from St. Louis told me that they were an afterthought. They were correct. Last season, they averaged about 46.5K and never hit 50K once all season...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,022
2,501
187
42
www.myspace.com
Before you fall in love with all those eyeballs, you should look at their average attendances, which are a damn good indicator of community interest. UCLA averaged just under 47K and USC averaged just over 56K last year. At one time, I thought UMO would turn out to be a good addition to the SEC. Then people from St. Louis told me that they were an afterthought. They were correct. Last season, they averaged about 46.5K and never hit 50K once all season...
I do follow attendance figures, I probably should dig in a little more since the last NCAA figures I have are from 2019 (which are not tainted by Covid). In my opinion though it's more of avoiding a detriment than finding an asset. For instance Nebraska had really good attendance in 2019, 89,000, but people are in general agreement that they do very little for the Big 10.

It still matters but for example in 2019 Clemson averaged 80,000 and Notre Dame averaged 76,000. South Carolina though averaged 77,000. My knock on Clemson isn't lack of fan support, just the redundancy. The SEC already has great exposure in South Carolina.

Washington averaged 68,000 but they are way too far out of the SEC's territory in my opinion. Southern Cal was 59,000 that year, which is not great but still was better than Virginia Tech, NC State, Miss. State and West Virginia for example.

I look to attendance more to gauge how engaged the fans are generally speaking, do they care at all? I cited Nebraska but I know fans in Nebraska love Nebraska football. The problem is it's still Nebraska. One reason I'm not hyping up Duke is their attendance was 25,000 (that's UAB level, Vandy is 26K). If their fans just don't care about football then we can't count on them to watch any other SEC teams either.

However, once you get past 40K in my opinion you are kind of past the danger zone. Now are approaching an engaged fanbase. in 2019 FSU had only 54K fans, so it's not like they're a guarantee to sell out all their games or anything. North Carolina had 50K, and that's a basketball school. So obviously I value NC more than FSU if they can have almost as many fans show up for football games while being more valuable in every other aspect.

Virginia was at 47K, not amazing but considering VT is supposed to be the football power in the state, between them and VT there really isn't that big a gap and FSU only had 7K more attendance? Ouch...

Ultimately it's one of many data points. Some people have suggested Kansas, 33K attendance... Arizona? 39K attendance. Missouri was 54K that year. I even threw Pitt out there, they were only 43K but I think they have more growth potential. Ole Miss was 48K for another point of reference. Arkansas 50k.

So for me, you don't want another embarrassment, another Vandy if you can avoid it. But, once you get past 40K, the gap between some of these supposed football powers and lesser programs I see as good candidates really narrows. I still like the addition of Missouri financially, because attendance is just one factor and we're still talking about a school that added a new state that also matched FSU in attendance which is allegedly a fantastic addition to the SEC...

Edit: Almost forgot, Miami was 52K. Not terrible but not great for a "football power" in a state the SEC is already in.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JDCrimson

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
31,682
20,097
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I just loved that Lincoln Riley ran away from the SEC to land in the big 10
Well yes but… outside of Ohio State he’s still going to have it about as easy as he would have without the move to the Big Ten.

He will be in a division with his other PAC 12 ex-pats. He was going to be playing Notre Dame already every year. Beyond that, what? Minnesota and Wisconsin are no more difficult than Stanford and Utah. IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rolltd

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
31,682
20,097
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
I do follow attendance figures, I probably should dig in a little more since the last NCAA figures I have are from 2019 (which are not tainted by Covid). In my opinion though it's more of avoiding a detriment than finding an asset. For instance Nebraska had really good attendance in 2019, 89,000, but people are in general agreement that they do very little for the Big 10.

It still matters but for example in 2019 Clemson averaged 80,000 and Notre Dame averaged 76,000. South Carolina though averaged 77,000. My knock on Clemson isn't lack of fan support, just the redundancy. The SEC already has great exposure in South Carolina.

Washington averaged 68,000 but they are way too far out of the SEC's territory in my opinion. Southern Cal was 59,000 that year, which is not great but still was better than Virginia Tech, NC State, Miss. State and West Virginia for example.

I look to attendance more to gauge how engaged the fans are generally speaking, do they care at all? I cited Nebraska but I know fans in Nebraska love Nebraska football. The problem is it's still Nebraska. One reason I'm not hyping up Duke is their attendance was 25,000 (that's UAB level, Vandy is 26K). If their fans just don't care about football then we can't count on them to watch any other SEC teams either.

However, once you get past 40K in my opinion you are kind of past the danger zone. Now are approaching an engaged fanbase. in 2019 FSU had only 54K fans, so it's not like they're a guarantee to sell out all their games or anything. North Carolina had 50K, and that's a basketball school. So obviously I value NC more than FSU if they can have almost as many fans show up for football games while being more valuable in every other aspect.

Virginia was at 47K, not amazing but considering VT is supposed to be the football power in the state, between them and VT there really isn't that big a gap and FSU only had 7K more attendance? Ouch...

Ultimately it's one of many data points. Some people have suggested Kansas, 33K attendance... Arizona? 39K attendance. Missouri was 54K that year. I even threw Pitt out there, they were only 43K but I think they have more growth potential. Ole Miss was 48K for another point of reference. Arkansas 50k.

So for me, you don't want another embarrassment, another Vandy if you can avoid it. But, once you get past 40K, the gap between some of these supposed football powers and lesser programs I see as good candidates really narrows. I still like the addition of Missouri financially, because attendance is just one factor and we're still talking about a school that added a new state that also matched FSU in attendance which is allegedly a fantastic addition to the SEC...

Edit: Almost forgot, Miami was 52K. Not terrible but not great for a "football power" in a state the SEC is already in.
That Miami number has to be inflated a La UAB attendance numbers.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,559
30,941
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
I do follow attendance figures, I probably should dig in a little more since the last NCAA figures I have are from 2019 (which are not tainted by Covid). In my opinion though it's more of avoiding a detriment than finding an asset. For instance Nebraska had really good attendance in 2019, 89,000, but people are in general agreement that they do very little for the Big 10.

It still matters but for example in 2019 Clemson averaged 80,000 and Notre Dame averaged 76,000. South Carolina though averaged 77,000. My knock on Clemson isn't lack of fan support, just the redundancy. The SEC already has great exposure in South Carolina.

Washington averaged 68,000 but they are way too far out of the SEC's territory in my opinion. Southern Cal was 59,000 that year, which is not great but still was better than Virginia Tech, NC State, Miss. State and West Virginia for example.

I look to attendance more to gauge how engaged the fans are generally speaking, do they care at all? I cited Nebraska but I know fans in Nebraska love Nebraska football. The problem is it's still Nebraska. One reason I'm not hyping up Duke is their attendance was 25,000 (that's UAB level, Vandy is 26K). If their fans just don't care about football then we can't count on them to watch any other SEC teams either.

However, once you get past 40K in my opinion you are kind of past the danger zone. Now are approaching an engaged fanbase. in 2019 FSU had only 54K fans, so it's not like they're a guarantee to sell out all their games or anything. North Carolina had 50K, and that's a basketball school. So obviously I value NC more than FSU if they can have almost as many fans show up for football games while being more valuable in every other aspect.

Virginia was at 47K, not amazing but considering VT is supposed to be the football power in the state, between them and VT there really isn't that big a gap and FSU only had 7K more attendance? Ouch...

Ultimately it's one of many data points. Some people have suggested Kansas, 33K attendance... Arizona? 39K attendance. Missouri was 54K that year. I even threw Pitt out there, they were only 43K but I think they have more growth potential. Ole Miss was 48K for another point of reference. Arkansas 50k.

So for me, you don't want another embarrassment, another Vandy if you can avoid it. But, once you get past 40K, the gap between some of these supposed football powers and lesser programs I see as good candidates really narrows. I still like the addition of Missouri financially, because attendance is just one factor and we're still talking about a school that added a new state that also matched FSU in attendance which is allegedly a fantastic addition to the SEC...

Edit: Almost forgot, Miami was 52K. Not terrible but not great for a "football power" in a state the SEC is already in.
To return to the topic, I'll repeat that I don't see the two California schools as being the big coup for the B1G that they're being made out to be, just because they're located in a populous state. Again, attendance = interest. Those attendance figures are pitiful for a state and area that populous. I wonder how their TV ratings really stand. And they're not viewed in the east at all, except for occasional inter-conference games. Meanwhile, they've added a ton of transportation expense, particularly for the minor sports. I like conferences where the states at least touch...
 

bamamoss2

All-SEC
Sep 10, 2000
1,804
141
187
71
Cullman, Alabama
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

DzynKingRTR

TideFans Legend
Dec 17, 2003
35,973
18,037
187
Vinings, ga., usa
To return to the topic, I'll repeat that I don't see the two California schools as being the big coup for the B1G that they're being made out to be, just because they're located in a populous state. Again, attendance = interest. Those attendance figures are pitiful for a state and area that populous. I wonder how their TV ratings really stand. And they're not viewed in the east at all, except for occasional inter-conference games. Meanwhile, they've added a ton of transportation expense, particularly for the minor sports. I like conferences where the states at least touch...
I am right there with you. When I first herad this story, my first thought was "so what?"
 

Ole Man Dan

Hall of Fame
Apr 21, 2008
8,260
2,208
187
Gadsden, Al.
What meaningful college football market has the B1G picked up since expansion?

College Park/DC? Piscataway? Lincoln? Morgantown?

LA may be the worst college football market there is. Primarily because baseball and NBA overlap now.

If you were going to purge the PAC, at least take Washington and Oregon and Colorado. At least they watch college football there
Easy to beat those colleges. They will help the record of the mid teams.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
31,682
20,097
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
To return to the topic, I'll repeat that I don't see the two California schools as being the big coup for the B1G that they're being made out to be, just because they're located in a populous state. Again, attendance = interest. Those attendance figures are pitiful for a state and area that populous. I wonder how their TV ratings really stand. And they're not viewed in the east at all, except for occasional inter-conference games. Meanwhile, they've added a ton of transportation expense, particularly for the minor sports. I like conferences where the states at least touch...
The whole reason USC and UCLA are leaving is the lack of interest for football and sports in general by that entire side of the country. The PAC 12 network and the conferences overall tv deal has been an utter disaster because no one out there cares enough to buy subscriptions and watch.

USC fled because it was on a sinking ship. UCLA did so because it was attached to USC.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: TIDE-HSV

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
31,682
20,097
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL

This is another one slant on Notre Dame from an Irish writer. What if the ACC gets ND first? It is not impossible since they have already become business friendly.
I disagree with the author’s assertion that ND chose ACC affiliation because they were some kind of better fit more closely aligned with ND athletically and academically.

They chose the ACC because at the time it was the only power conference willing to allow an arrangement of housing it’s Olympic sports while having some number of guaranteed football games per season.

Neither the SEC nor the Big Ten would have ever settled for such an arrangement. The ACC did so because it was the weakest power 5 conference and needed the extra clout.

Now, I will say an “Atlantic Coast Conference” with Stanford and Washington as members would be truly bizarre.
 

JDCrimson

All-American
Feb 12, 2006
3,897
2,154
187
49
I wonder how correlated stadium attendance is to TV ratings? This about eyeballs in big markets for national advertisers as Krazy suggests.

I dont think the SEC should get distracted with ND.
They are not winning of anything of substance going through a conference schedule.

To return to the topic, I'll repeat that I don't see the two California schools as being the big coup for the B1G that they're being made out to be, just because they're located in a populous state. Again, attendance = interest. Those attendance figures are pitiful for a state and area that populous. I wonder how their TV ratings really stand. And they're not viewed in the east at all, except for occasional inter-conference games. Meanwhile, they've added a ton of transportation expense, particularly for the minor sports. I like conferences where the states at least touch...
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,022
2,501
187
42
www.myspace.com
To return to the topic, I'll repeat that I don't see the two California schools as being the big coup for the B1G that they're being made out to be, just because they're located in a populous state. Again, attendance = interest. Those attendance figures are pitiful for a state and area that populous. I wonder how their TV ratings really stand. And they're not viewed in the east at all, except for occasional inter-conference games. Meanwhile, they've added a ton of transportation expense, particularly for the minor sports. I like conferences where the states at least touch...
Someone had to do it for the sake of college football (keep the LA market) but I'm glad it was the Big 10. There will be a financial windfall, all signs point to that. Apple wanted back in on negotiations and the fear of missing out is driving up the Big 10's TV contract. But, I do agree that there are long term logistical issues there. I want the SEC to expand their territory but I do prefer contiguous expansion or something very close to it.

I haven't seem firm numbers but I heard that USC was claiming they and UCLA had 60% of the TV market for the Pac-12 or something along those lines. Also I've heard that the final Big 10 deal could be as high as 25 million more per year than the SEC is currently getting. That's not just about USC though of course but the timing is very advantageous.
 
Last edited:

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,559
30,941
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Someone had to do it for the sake of college football (keep the LA market) but I'm glad it was the Big 10. There will be a financial windfall, all signs point to that. Apple wanted back in on negotiations and the fear of missing out is driving up the Big 10's TV contract. But, I do agree that there are long term logistical issues there. I want the SEC to expand but I do prefer contiguous expansion or something very close to it.

I haven't seem firm numbers but I heard that USC was claiming they and UCLA had 60% of the TV market for the Pac-12 or something along those lines. Also I've heard that the final Big 10 deal could be as high as 25 million more per year than the SEC is currently getting. That's not just about USC though of course but the timing is very advantageous.
I think they're going to be sorry and it may well be a "financial windfall" for USC and UCLA. I don't think it will be for the B1Gs. I know I won't be staying up late to watch them. OTOH, I'm not doing that now...
 

imauafan

All-American
Mar 3, 2004
3,456
740
132
Huntsville, AL
I think they're going to be sorry and it may well be a "financial windfall" for USC and UCLA. I don't think it will be for the B1Gs. I know I won't be staying up late to watch them. OTOH, I'm not doing that now...
That's how I feel too. I believe the tv networks are making a big mistake and the production quality of the games will suffer as they try to cut costs to keep from losing money on these deals. There will be tons of commercials, low quality broadcast crews, fewer camera angles, etc. We've already seen that with ESPN. Perhaps one high profile game a week will have a high-quality broadcast, but the rest will have us wishing for the JP game of the week with the 3 Dave's. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the announcers calling games from their home just like is happening with some of the basketball games now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TideEngineer08

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
80,559
30,941
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
That's how I feel too. I believe the tv networks are making a big mistake and the production quality of the games will suffer as they try to cut costs to keep from losing money on these deals. There will be tons of commercials, low quality broadcast crews, fewer camera angles, etc. We've already seen that with ESPN. Perhaps one high profile game a week will have a high-quality broadcast, but the rest will have us wishing for the JP game of the week with the 3 Dave's. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the announcers calling games from their home just like is happening with some of the basketball games now.
Yep, with Rutgers, B1G is now coast to coast. This is interesting from the Rutgers site:

Rutgers averaged 44,307 tickets out per game in 2021. It averaged 30,044 out in 2019. Rutgers averaged 25,347 tickets scanned per game in 2021, a number that is not considered fully accurate due to technical issues and event staff error. But the average scan figure for 2019 was 16,366.
"Tickets out" means the freebies, a la UAB...
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop - Bryce Young NIL Jersey


Your purchase through our TideFans.shop links helps support the site! Thanks!