USC and UCLA to the B1G

1. ND is waiting on their TV deal (24 or 25).  It puts the B1G in waiting mode.  But I really beleive they are trying to leverage the idea of moving to B1G for money independently (TV contracts).  And that's good for them, but it sucks.

2.  We need some more Arizona and Colorado teams to fill in the travel gaps.  Maybe a Utah  chuckleshuffle    Forget Oregon and Wash - too far away.  The B1G got enough money, let's make this more travel friendly, add the teams, and then shut it down.  ND can remain indy.

 
Mavric said:
I wouldn't say they "don't have interest".  And playing Marshall, UNLV, Boston College, Syracuse and even Cal (like they do this year) isn't exactly helping their "national appeal" either.  Heck, even having North Carolina, BYU and Navy isn't really "must see TV" though slightly better in the name recognition department.  Playing 3-4 games against some combination of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, USC, Nebraska and UCLA is going to be at least an even trade and probably an upgrade over what they have now. 

They are already (potentially) handicapped by the format of an expanded playoff.  Though they still seemed to be fine with that.

They would rather be independent but it will come down to money.  If they can get the same TV payout, they'll likely stay independent.  But if not - and thus, fall behind from a competitive standpoint - they'll look pretty hard at joining a conference.
Click to expand...
Sounds like they might be getting 75 million. I think that is enough to keep them independent. Then it's a matter of whether the Big10 moves on without them.

 
BigRedN said:
Plus, if ND chooses the B1G, they still would get three [3] games to schedule.  They could have a nice full, national schedule if they like.
Click to expand...
Scratch one of those now that Darth Swarbrick ended our tradition of playing only FBS teams. Although losing one to an FCS would garner national attention. 

 
gossamorharpy said:
someone call up those parents of the players to slap a lawsuit on the big10 seeking our full share we never got when we joined
Click to expand...


Am I remembering this right?  Is it mainly Nebraska that got hosed here?  

Didn't Maryland and Rutgers get shorted in part because they got a loan to pay off their exit fees?  Or perhaps they got shorted for the load and also got shorted beyond that.

Not that I'm complaining.  Just interesting.

 
Mavric said:
Am I remembering this right?  Is it mainly Nebraska that got hosed here?  

Didn't Maryland and Rutgers get shorted in part because they got a loan to pay off their exit fees?  Or perhaps they got shorted for the load and also got shorted beyond that.

Not that I'm complaining.  Just interesting.
Click to expand...
Yep, pretty sure we had like a 5 year step up program in place where we got more and more each year and then around 2016ish (could be off) we got our full share of revenue.

I dont recall what rutgers and maryland had but I imagine they had a similar plan in place

Optics wise, its a horrendous look.  Do I care? meh, not really, we werent hurting for money.  

Is somewhat hypocritical tho 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's probably safe to say that the Big Ten learned a lesson in how not to treat a new school when Nebraska joined. Lesson learned, they didn't do the same to Rutgers & Maryland, or to USC & UCLA.

 
Mavric said:
Am I remembering this right?  Is it mainly Nebraska that got hosed here?  

Didn't Maryland and Rutgers get shorted in part because they got a loan to pay off their exit fees?  Or perhaps they got shorted for the load and also got shorted beyond that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I think it was Maryland that got a deal where they'd receive a larger initial share (larger than Nebraska's at the time) in exchange for a longer buy-in period. They needed the money up front to pay their exit fee, and had to accept a longer period of receiving less than other members.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top