what market(s) does ND bring to the B10 were it to join?
what market(s) does ND bring the ACC, SEC, B12, PAC?
seems to me that ND would be worth more to other conferences, especially ones lacking in marquee brands, than to the B10.
that said, there is the obvious "distance" factor for ND.
and the "recruiting factor".
i suppose only someone at ND could tell us how being ACC affects recruiting to ND, both fball and bball, as opposed to if they were in the B10.
will be interesting to see how being in the B10 affects recruiting to USC and UCLA vs being in the PAC.
that said, not being an insider or a lawyer, i have no idea the legal ramifications and restraints were UCLA and USC to renege on joining the B10 and stay in the PAC.
absent the legal ties being unbreakable, i still wouldn't totally rule out UCLA and USC staying in the PAC after all. (or returning later).
how much are UCLA and USC worth to the PAC, vs worth to the B10?
especially if say major carriage deals would be dependent on them being in the PAC, when they probably aren't nearly as dependent on them being in the B10.
USC and UCLA being the only western teams in the BT cannot work in the long-run, imo.
Here's what I think has happened to date, and why.
When the SEC took Texas & Oklahoma, they won the 'realignment war', in so far as football goes. And football drives the $ and prestige.
The SEC had already been kicking the BT's ass, but adding Texas & Oklahoma was a total game-changer.
If the BT wanted to remain even within striking distance, they had to make a splash response, but there really was no logical one available. All the truly big time programs other than USC and ND were already in the SEC or Big Ten, or tied up with the ACC (as is ND, even if they wanted to come to the BT, which they don't ).
So, into this vacuum steps USC, with eyes on BT $ and no significant legal ties to the PAC.
Without USC, the Big Ten was permanently going to clear 2nd tier status......ahead of the ACC, Big 12, and PAC, but barely within shouting distance of the SEC.
On the other hand, taking USC put the final stake through the heart of the BT all of us had known.
USC couldn't come alone, so UCLA was added as well. Everyone and his uncle assumed that there would be at least two other additions as soon as USC and UCLA were digested. Everyone instinctively understood you couldn't just take 2 west coast teams and leave them on an island 2000 miles away from the other schools. That eventually, as you say, their fans & administrators will demand something different. But that's what happened......why?
1. The BT felt it could not pass on USC & UCLA. In addition to football and market, their academics are top notch for schools that are legit football actors. 2. Going to 16, ending the BT as we knew it, and adjusting to the additions of two schools so distant were huge changes. There was no consensus on what to do next, and adding 4 right away was too considered too much change. Warren was not completely trusted by the Presidents because he was an NFL guy with an NFL outlook. Also, over the last few years there has been tremendous turnover among the BT presidents. And the new contract had to be negotiated. 3. At some point when and after the contract was negotiated, it became clear that adding the two most logical #s 3 & 4, Washington & Oregon, would actually cost the BT $, and a good amount of it, at least in the short-run. This is something, of course, that should have been considered when the decision to take USC & UCLA was first made. if the leadership wasn't willing to take 4 in total, perhaps not immediately, but eventually, they shouldn't have taken USC & UCLA. I think the general thinking was they could put off taking Washington & Oregon for 2-3 years, and get them later by offering 50-60% until the end of the contract, and 100% thereafter. What has never really been explained if how Washington & Oregon would be worthwhile schools to be 100% partners in 5-7 years, but aren't right now............
Think about this situation if you were a USC or UCLA fan.......sure OSU, PSU, and Michigan would be interesting, but you're only going to play 1-2 of them in any given year. Iowa, Wisconsin, MSU, Nebraska might be palatable, but IU, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, Rutgers, Maryland, Northwestern.....in November? They have less than 0 interest in those schools.
www.actionnetwork.com
www.cbssports.com
www.sportskeeda.com
