USC, UCLA to Join the Big Ten Conference in 2024
Goto page Previous  1, 2

 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 36446

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 7:39 am    Post subject:

The TV money is better in the Big 10.....but I can see there will be a huge disadvantage for both Socal schools when they play college football in bitter midwest cold weather temperatures. That weather will be a rude awakening compared to the more mild temperatures when they play the teams in Oregon or Washington. Also those road trips to see games in Norcal or Arizona were a thing, with them leaving to join a conference made up mostly of midwest schools I can't see a lot of fans making trips out to the midwest to see a road game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 11474

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:42 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
The TV money is better in the Big 10.....


If the TV money is better in the Big 10, why would the other 14 teams want to share this lucrative TV money with 2 new teams? Unless they pay per team?

This is one reason why there's an expansion fee in professional sports. Because the other owners don't want to share their TV revenue with new expansion teams.

I don't know how it works in college sports.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 11474

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:44 am    Post subject:

C-BUS LAKERFAN wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
I don't understand conferences or how they work.

Is bigger better?

How does the Big 10 benefit by getting UCLA and USC?

How does a conference generate money? I'm thinking the same as professional leagues?

1) TV revenue
2) sponsorship deals
3) Gate receipts
4) Merchandise
5) Bowl games

I'm thinking revenues are split evenly across all the members of the conference. So, there's 14 teams in the Big 10, and now adding USC and UCLA makes it a 16 team conference?

So, what does the Big 10 get out of letting USC and UCLA join?

Do they get more TV revenue? More bowl games revenue?


LA market. Rumor is each team will receive 100 million a year in TV revenue with the new Fox contract. I heard that the current Pac revenue is 30 million a year. It's too much $ for them to pass up. UCLA has a 30 million athletic deficit.


Yeah, I get it from the perspective of USC and UCLA.

What's the benefit to the Big 10? They get a more lucrative TV deal by recruiting UCLA and USC?

If each team is getting $100M a year, how much are the other 14 teams getting?

Or does UCLA and USC get more than the other Big 10 teams?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 36446

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:49 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
The TV money is better in the Big 10.....


If the TV money is better in the Big 10, why would the other 14 teams want to share this lucrative TV money with 2 new teams? Unless they pay per team?

This is one reason why there's an expansion fee in professional sports. Because the other owners don't want to share their TV revenue with new expansion teams.

I don't know how it works in college sports.


The new Big 10 TV deal is still in negotiations. They can now ask for more money with the 2 Socal schools joining. The conference as a whole wins, as they are one of the other mega-conference other than the SEC. The Pac-12 TV deal was killing the bigger national programs like USC. They were getting a fraction of the money that schools in a conference like the SEC were getting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 11474

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:51 am    Post subject:

lakersken80 wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
The TV money is better in the Big 10.....


If the TV money is better in the Big 10, why would the other 14 teams want to share this lucrative TV money with 2 new teams? Unless they pay per team?

This is one reason why there's an expansion fee in professional sports. Because the other owners don't want to share their TV revenue with new expansion teams.

I don't know how it works in college sports.


The new Big 10 TV deal is still in negotiations. They can now ask for more money with the 2 Socal schools joining. The conference as a whole wins, as they are one of the other mega-conference other than the SEC.


Yeah, that's interesting how the Pac 12 couldn't leverage USC and UCLA into huge TV deals but the Big 10 can.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LongBeachPoly
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 11474

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:55 am    Post subject:

The Rose Bowl is going to be different now with USC and UCLA representing the Big 10.

Also, will the Big 10 change it's name now that they have 16 schools?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 36446

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 8:57 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
The Rose Bowl is going to be different now with USC and UCLA representing the Big 10.

Also, will the Big 10 change it's name now that they have 16 schools?


Nope, because the Big Ten is their brand, so they aren't going to change their name just because they added more schools.
And yes, the Rose Bowl will definitely be hurt by this. Instead of 2 teams playing each other on a game on New Years Day that haven't faced each other the entire season, it could be a rematch of a game that happened in the Big Ten regular season. The Rose Bowl might see a rematch of Big Ten schools like USC vs Ohio State or USC vs Michigan being a more appealing game rather than Washington vs USC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Cutheon
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Jul 2009
Posts: 10953
Location: Bay Area

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:07 am    Post subject:

jonnybravo wrote:
Cutheon wrote:
hydrohead wrote:
As a UCI grad, we would be happy to take the place of UCLA in the PAC-X.


zot zot baby


Yo, you're an anteater too?! Let's GOOO! Zot zot zot!!!


for life bb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 12748

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:37 am    Post subject:

I thought USC was going to finally dominate the PAC-12 again because of the lack of competition. This is shocking.

Although I kind of feel like saying good riddance. The PAC-12 has been embarrassing and the performance of the conference seems to decline as time goes by. No playoff team since 2016, and that was a 4th seeded Washington team that was overmatched and dominated by Alabama.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 12748

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:44 am    Post subject:

non-player zealot wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Shocking move if true, but then again the Pac-12's weakness as a conference led to something like this. I'm sure the Pac-12 network where its on a channel that has less exposure than something like Fox/FS1/Big 10 Network which is available in far less homes results in Pac-12 teams getting far less money than other conferences.


There's a dude on YT whose chan I like to peruse on the telly for the old school NBA stuff from 92-94 and NCAA hoops. He recorded SportsCenters every day from 1991 to 2002ish and uploaded recaps in chronological order, probably 90-120 mins of content each. He's got NCAA seasons from at least 91/2 to 97/8. The 92 clips are especially interesting for The Shaq appearances and Dookies. Shaq was ridiculous next to the Lilliputians in college ball if you thought the NBA was puny next to him. Also the Fab 5 gms from 93. I went thru the whole list from 1994/5 to revisit some of the 95 Bruins and I was surprised to re-learn that there were 4 Pac10 teams in the Tourney that year. UCLA, Arizona, Mario Bennett Arizona St, Oregon. There might've even been 5 with Stanford, can't recall. It wasn't a sh-less conf for the Bruins that year. Iirc, UMass w/ Camby was the team people thot were gonna win in 95 and or 96, but Camby got injured in season in 95 and they didn't recover. UNC w/ Sheed and Stack in 95. I think they got beat in a nasty upset. Arkansas was a tough matchup for a lot of teams as the title game opponent because they ran all night like an Arkansan LMU.

Dat Tyus Edney drive vs Mizzou, do'. The Marques Johnson radio call of that moment is great (his son was a Bruin in 97, Chris, had weight issues). Second it went in, he started screaming "YEAH, BABAY!" fifty-leven times in a row. That drive was the margin of error for the last Bruins championship team (to come for more decades, prob). Great ride, tho. The run w/ the Farmar/Afflalo/M'bah-a-Moute team was good, but you knew Florida was going to beat them, and they did.

I remember keeping tabs on the 92 Trojan team just for the Baby Jordan, but they lost to this. James Forrest was a 12th guy on the Lakers one year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLbuGuWgHTA


Actually Florida was only a 1 point favorite going into that game.

LINK

UCLA was actually a higher seed as a 2 seed while Florida was a 3. I wonder if you’re thinking of the rematch in 2007, when Florida was a #1 seed and defending national champs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
non-player zealot
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Posts: 20980

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 10:40 am    Post subject:

Steve007 wrote:
non-player zealot wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
Shocking move if true, but then again the Pac-12's weakness as a conference led to something like this. I'm sure the Pac-12 network where its on a channel that has less exposure than something like Fox/FS1/Big 10 Network which is available in far less homes results in Pac-12 teams getting far less money than other conferences.


There's a dude on YT whose chan I like to peruse on the telly for the old school NBA stuff from 92-94 and NCAA hoops. He recorded SportsCenters every day from 1991 to 2002ish and uploaded recaps in chronological order, probably 90-120 mins of content each. He's got NCAA seasons from at least 91/2 to 97/8. The 92 clips are especially interesting for The Shaq appearances and Dookies. Shaq was ridiculous next to the Lilliputians in college ball if you thought the NBA was puny next to him. Also the Fab 5 gms from 93. I went thru the whole list from 1994/5 to revisit some of the 95 Bruins and I was surprised to re-learn that there were 4 Pac10 teams in the Tourney that year. UCLA, Arizona, Mario Bennett Arizona St, Oregon. There might've even been 5 with Stanford, can't recall. It wasn't a sh-less conf for the Bruins that year. Iirc, UMass w/ Camby was the team people thot were gonna win in 95 and or 96, but Camby got injured in season in 95 and they didn't recover. UNC w/ Sheed and Stack in 95. I think they got beat in a nasty upset. Arkansas was a tough matchup for a lot of teams as the title game opponent because they ran all night like an Arkansan LMU.

Dat Tyus Edney drive vs Mizzou, do'. The Marques Johnson radio call of that moment is great (his son was a Bruin in 97, Chris, had weight issues). Second it went in, he started screaming "YEAH, BABAY!" fifty-leven times in a row. That drive was the margin of error for the last Bruins championship team (to come for more decades, prob). Great ride, tho. The run w/ the Farmar/Afflalo/M'bah-a-Moute team was good, but you knew Florida was going to beat them, and they did.

I remember keeping tabs on the 92 Trojan team just for the Baby Jordan, but they lost to this. James Forrest was a 12th guy on the Lakers one year. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLbuGuWgHTA


Actually Florida was only a 1 point favorite going into that game.

LINK

UCLA was actually a higher seed as a 2 seed while Florida was a 3. I wonder if you’re thinking of the rematch in 2007, when Florida was a #1 seed and defending national champs.


May be the case, but I was reffing to the 06 Champ game in partic (and then 07 for sure). I distinctly recall not having good vibes about the 06 game, thought Noah/Corey Brewer was at least the better duo amongst the teams. Remember talking to a Bruin fan at work about 06 the days leading up to the game, but he was ever-optimistic about LA teams in general, I am pessimistic by nature. Wasn't a fan of Farmar and also thought yuck when we picked him up as a rook, tho he became pleasantly serviceable by 08 (he was good in the 08/09 roles, but that had him as a 2nd rotation bench depth cat, not as a starter). My 2006 feeling might've been confirmed as something that was never even questionable after UCLA lost by 16 pts. Surprised in retrospect years later to hear that Vegas had 06 as only 1 pt diff, but that's college hoops for ya. Any solid attempt at predicting brackets now had better include some 2/15 upset or upsets just to make it realistic.

Where were your hopes against FL in those years? Were you optimistic in lieu of Noah on FL? I thought he was the top player on either team by a good margin if nothing else.
_________________
GOAT MAGIC REEL
SEDALE TRIBUTE
EDDIE DONX!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Steve007
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 12748

PostPosted: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:50 am    Post subject:

^I didn’t follow college that closely, just watched UCLA and some other teams in that tournament. I don’t think I was confident in that UCLA team in most of the matchups starting from the Sweet 16. They faced a top 5 ranked Gonzaga team with Adam Morrison, beat a #1 seed Memphis team that was dominating games in the tournament, beat a really good LSU team in the Final 4 with Glen Davis.

Never thought Florida would be back-to-back champs, just saw them as another tough opponent that made it all the way to the championship game and thought it could go either way. UCLA was an ugly team to watch but they kept winning.

Even a year later when UCLA beat a top seeded Kansas, I thought they might take Florida in the rematch. Makes me wonder how UCLA would have done if Florida wasn’t so dominant in those years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerLanny
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Oct 2001
Posts: 46426

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:05 am    Post subject:

Well this is something I never expected to see.

While it makes sense to me actually from a football perspective, it doesn't make sense at all for the vast majority of the sports at UCLA and USC from a travel/cost angle.

That said, football trumps all in the United States and I have to admit that matchups vs. the likes of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, etc. are very attractive compared to Washington State, Arizona, Cal, etc.

What would be really good is if they brought Oregon and Washington in also and kicked out Illinois and Rutgers.
_________________
Love, Laker Lanny
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 36446

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 11:29 am    Post subject:

LakerLanny wrote:
Well this is something I never expected to see.

While it makes sense to me actually from a football perspective, it doesn't make sense at all for the vast majority of the sports at UCLA and USC from a travel/cost angle.

That said, football trumps all in the United States and I have to admit that matchups vs. the likes of Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, etc. are very attractive compared to Washington State, Arizona, Cal, etc.

What would be really good is if they brought Oregon and Washington in also and kicked out Illinois and Rutgers.


Heard they will add a couple more universities and they are waiting on Notre Dame. Oregon and Washington will probably be in the Big Ten as well since they have strong programs.

The money and TV deals from college football helps fund the rest of the university sports programs so it makes sense from a financial point of view. The Pac-12 TV deal was pretty poor compared to the other conference TV deals so I can see why USC and UCLA left. If some bottom tier SEC school is getting TV money that is a 3x more than what a top tier Pac-12 university is getting that is going to have some long term negative effects for that Pac-12 program.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lalakers91
Rookie
Rookie


Joined: 10 Aug 2012
Posts: 15

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 11:47 am    Post subject:

the Pac 12 has to be 30 for 30 in the future
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
dont_be_a_wuss
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 29 Mar 2012
Posts: 18895

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:00 pm    Post subject:

Do we need to buy the big ten network to watch the games?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 36446

PostPosted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 4:51 pm    Post subject:

dont_be_a_wuss wrote:
Do we need to buy the big ten network to watch the games?


You have to buy whatever package that includes the channel. Nevertheless, the channel is available on more providers than the Pac-12 network, which is probably one of the reasons why both Socal schools decided to move to the Big Ten. TV revenue is a huge revenue stream of todays college sports and the Pac-12 network being locked out of many providers was the source of its downfall.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
C-BUS LAKERFAN
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 May 2002
Posts: 1427

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:36 am    Post subject:

Big10 commish states they will be aggressive in expansion. I know they want ND to join. Probably more Pac teams as well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
C-BUS LAKERFAN
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 May 2002
Posts: 1427

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:40 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
The TV money is better in the Big 10.....


If the TV money is better in the Big 10, why would the other 14 teams want to share this lucrative TV money with 2 new teams? Unless they pay per team?

This is one reason why there's an expansion fee in professional sports. Because the other owners don't want to share their TV revenue with new expansion teams.

I don't know how it works in college sports.


The new Big 10 TV deal is still in negotiations. They can now ask for more money with the 2 Socal schools joining. The conference as a whole wins, as they are one of the other mega-conference other than the SEC.


Yeah, that's interesting how the Pac 12 couldn't leverage USC and UCLA into huge TV deals but the Big 10 can.


Because the Big10 brings TV viewers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
C-BUS LAKERFAN
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 May 2002
Posts: 1427

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2022 10:45 am    Post subject:

LongBeachPoly wrote:
C-BUS LAKERFAN wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
I don't understand conferences or how they work.

Is bigger better?

How does the Big 10 benefit by getting UCLA and USC?

How does a conference generate money? I'm thinking the same as professional leagues?

1) TV revenue
2) sponsorship deals
3) Gate receipts
4) Merchandise
5) Bowl games

I'm thinking revenues are split evenly across all the members of the conference. So, there's 14 teams in the Big 10, and now adding USC and UCLA makes it a 16 team conference?

So, what does the Big 10 get out of letting USC and UCLA join?

Do they get more TV revenue? More bowl games revenue?


LA market. Rumor is each team will receive 100 million a year in TV revenue with the new Fox contract. I heard that the current Pac revenue is 30 million a year. It's too much $ for them to pass up. UCLA has a 30 million athletic deficit.


Yeah, I get it from the perspective of USC and UCLA.

What's the benefit to the Big 10? They get a more lucrative TV deal by recruiting UCLA and USC?

If each team is getting $100M a year, how much are the other 14 teams getting?

Or does UCLA and USC get more than the other Big 10 teams?


Big10 does equal TV and Bowl game revenue sharing. If USC/UCLA got more $, Ohio State would throw the biggest temper tantrum. They have carried the conference for the last 2 decades.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 36446

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2022 11:05 am    Post subject:

C-BUS LAKERFAN wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
LongBeachPoly wrote:
lakersken80 wrote:
The TV money is better in the Big 10.....


If the TV money is better in the Big 10, why would the other 14 teams want to share this lucrative TV money with 2 new teams? Unless they pay per team?

This is one reason why there's an expansion fee in professional sports. Because the other owners don't want to share their TV revenue with new expansion teams.

I don't know how it works in college sports.


The new Big 10 TV deal is still in negotiations. They can now ask for more money with the 2 Socal schools joining. The conference as a whole wins, as they are one of the other mega-conference other than the SEC.


Yeah, that's interesting how the Pac 12 couldn't leverage USC and UCLA into huge TV deals but the Big 10 can.


Because the Big10 brings TV viewers.


When USC was down in the post-Pete Carroll era, nobody could put the Pac-12 conference on their back to win a national championship. If your team can't put out national title contenders on a regular basis they are easily forgotten. Everything like the terrible TV deal is because the conference was weak so nobody wants to pay good money for a bad product.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
C-BUS LAKERFAN
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 30 May 2002
Posts: 1427

PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 6:19 am    Post subject:

Rumor is ESPN is out on any Big10 games. Fox, CBS and NBC will be airing the games.

Last figure I saw had each big10 team will be getting 90-100 million a year in TV revenue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
lakersken80
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Posts: 36446

PostPosted: Wed Aug 10, 2022 10:14 am    Post subject:

C-BUS LAKERFAN wrote:
Rumor is ESPN is out on any Big10 games. Fox, CBS and NBC will be airing the games.

Last figure I saw had each big10 team will be getting 90-100 million a year in TV revenue.


USC and UCLA read the tea leaves and will now benefit financially. No way they were getting those type of revenues by staying in the Pac-12.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB