| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CalwbbFan
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
Posts: 1474
Back to top |
 Posted: 09/03/23 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| double post removed
|
|
ridor
Joined: 18 Oct 2005
Posts: 1055
Location: Frederick, Maryland
Back to top |
| Posted: 09/04/23 4:46 am ::: |
Reply |
|
I told my best friend who is a huge fan of Stanford Cardinal - that I never, never thought I'd see the day that Virginia Cavaliers will play Stanford in the same conference.
Then we cracked the jokes about seeing the headline "Cards beats Card 71-70" - we gotta think bit harder... when it comes to that.
|
|
SPD
Joined: 29 Oct 2021
Posts: 678
Location: California
Back to top |
|
singinerd54
Joined: 18 Feb 2009
Posts: 1817
Location: Missouri
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 11:55 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| One (hopeful) positive of conference realignment is greater access to games. There are two top 10 matchups today (Stanford-Colorado and UCLA-USC) and the ability to watch them is very limited. Meanwhile, we get two SEC games on ESPN with only one ranked team between them. Here's to better access for watching the best teams in the game more frequently.
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 1:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| One (hopeful) positive of conference realignment is greater access to games. |
that’s the only positive i can see with the Pac’s breakup. this conference was complete shit at promoting any sport that was relegated to the Pac-12 Networks, which was most sports including wbb – particularly as it relates to staggering game days & start times. 5 of 6 games today start at noon local time for example, so even if one did get P12N, one couldn’t possibly watch even some of the games individually since most are going on at the same time. nor should they all normally be scheduled on the same two days (Fridays & Sundays, with few exceptions). that’s not “growing the game” whatsoever. if anything, that could be seen as a move to keep the games hindered – y’know, if the Pac’s tv execs actually had any wherewithal about it, which of course they never did.
that said, i’m not looking forward to the idea of having to get subscriptions to the Big Ten Network and Peacock. personally gonna hold off on getting those for as long as i can. but at least people around the country will finally be able to access these schools' games if they so choose… and can afford to.
|
|
Michael
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 2:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stormeo wrote: |
| singinerd54 wrote: |
| One (hopeful) positive of conference realignment is greater access to games. |
that’s the only positive i can see with the Pac’s breakup. this conference was complete shit at promoting any sport that was relegated to the Pac-12 Networks, which was most sports including wbb – particularly as it relates to staggering game days & start times. 5 of 6 games today start at noon local time for example, so even if one did get P12N, one couldn’t possibly watch even some of the games individually since most are going on at the same time. nor should they all normally be scheduled on the same two days (Fridays & Sundays, with few exceptions). that’s not “growing the game” whatsoever. if anything, that could be seen as a move to keep the games hindered – y’know, if the Pac’s tv execs actually had any wherewithal about it, which of course they never did.
that said, i’m not looking forward to the idea of having to get subscriptions to the Big Ten Network and Peacock. personally gonna hold off on getting those for as long as i can. but at least people around the country will finally be able to access these schools' games if they so choose… and can afford to. |
If you live in Washington state as I thought you did, BTN will be on basic cable for free starting next football season.
_________________
Michael
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 3:33 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Michael wrote: |
| If you live in Washington state as I thought you did, BTN will be on basic cable for free starting next football season. |
good to know, thank you!
|
|
Michael
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 4:39 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Stormeo wrote: |
| Michael wrote: |
| If you live in Washington state as I thought you did, BTN will be on basic cable for free starting next football season. |
good to know, thank you! |
When the Big Ten network was created, they fought hard to be on basic cable on any carrier in any state they have a team. The BTN earns one dollar for every cable subscription per month in all those states. That is where a lot of our money comes from and why when USC and UCLA came knocking on our door as a package deal, we could not turn them away. Also that is why Stanford and Cal were non-starters for the BT, they added nothing to the pie, just two more mouths to feed. OU and Washington only get half shares because there are not enough people in those states to offset a full share.
_________________
Michael
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 5:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Michael wrote: |
| OU and Washington only get half shares because there are not enough people in those states to offset a full share. |
That's just the B10 being greedy. Washington has more people than most B10 states and Oregon isn't the least populous B10 state.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Michael
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 5:56 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Michael wrote: |
| OU and Washington only get half shares because there are not enough people in those states to offset a full share. |
That's just the B10 being greedy. Washington has more people than most B10 states and Oregon isn't the least populous B10 state. |
Some of original 7 states maybe, not more than any of the additions. The Big Ten did not want OU and UW and had turned them down several times. They did not want to dismember the Pac12 completely. But once the 4 programs went to the Big 12 and OU and UW came back to the BT once again and offered to take half, they became a value. But every addition since the Big Ten Network came into being has added more money than their share would be paid out. You can call that greedy, which explains why the P12 no longer exists, but most would call it good financial management of the member schools.
_________________
Michael
|
|
Hoopsmom
Joined: 05 Apr 2017
Posts: 680
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 8:24 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Big Ten is on basic cable for most people around here, but Big Ten Plus is where they show most of the women’s games. And that’s extra, and it’s not cheap.
|
|
pilight
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66920
Location: Where the action is
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 8:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Michael wrote: |
| Some of original 7 states maybe, not more than any of the additions |
Is Nebraska an addition? Washington has about four times its population and Oregon has more than double it. Is Maryland? Washington has considerably more people.
Also, one California school adds money, two in the same city not so much.
_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home
|
|
Michael
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 602
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 9:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| pilight wrote: |
| Michael wrote: |
| Some of original 7 states maybe, not more than any of the additions |
Is Nebraska an addition? Washington has about four times its population and Oregon has more than double it. Is Maryland? Washington has considerably more people.
Also, one California school adds money, two in the same city not so much. |
Maryland added the tidewater area as "local" just as Rutgers got to add NYC. USC and UCLA were a package deal, take both or neither. Nebraska got in before the BTN came into being so I guess I had the timeline slightly wrong on that.
_________________
Michael
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010
Posts: 9627
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/14/24 10:02 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Be interesting to hear an argument against that logic. Unless the future includes the Pac-12 paying money to schools who are leaving/left.
Last edited by tfan on 01/15/24 2:04 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
wnbafan
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 737
Location: Delaware
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/15/24 9:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Hoopsmom wrote: |
| Big Ten is on basic cable for most people around here, but Big Ten Plus is where they show most of the women’s games. And that’s extra, and it’s not cheap. |
I get the school subscription 9.99/mth. I start it in November and cancel in February. So I'm paying $30-40/yr to see every game the Terps play.
I noticed this year that a lot more Terps games are on BTN or other sports station. I've used the B1G app for maybe 3-4 games so far.
_________________
Be kind, be careful, be yourself
|
|
Stormeo
Joined: 14 Jul 2019
Posts: 4701
Back to top |
| Posted: 01/17/24 5:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
—Pac-2 [aka Oregon State + Wazzu] & MWC full-on merger highly unlikely
—Pac-2 poaching MWC, AAC, etc. would be likelier – however,
—Pac-2 ultimately want in on the ACC, and most importantly,
—Pac-2 ultimately optimistic about merging with aka getting into ACC
—Pac-2 simply waiting for the path they're lowkey envisioning to open up
—and it'll get closer to doing so when Clemson follows Florida State in taking similar legal action against the ACC
—yep, apparently that's still on
—could happen anytime between now and the next 3-4 weeks
(—then what?)
—everyone preparing for a few schools or more departing ACC throughout these next couple years
—would then induce ESPN to opt out of the extended portion (2027-2036) of current ACC media deal
—again, ESPN allegedly has until the end of Feb. 2025 to decide
—changes likely force remaining ACC schools to re-negotiate a new media deal for 2027 & beyond
—probably would still involve ESPN, maybe even exclusively so again, but not necessarily
—would this all fall under Conference Realignment 2.0? 3.0?
—not up to me to decide as far as i'm concerned
—i guess it could be, but who really cares
—touching grass on a regular basis is more important
|
|
|
|
