I wonder the same because it would make way more sense geographically to have Cal and Stanford join a western division of the Big Ten than to be the lone western teams in the ACC. It just feels like the BigTen’s position of “we want to keep it at 18 teams and not 20” is a BS negotiating ploy. What is the difference between having 18 or 20? All they really care about are the splits of media revenue
I wonder the same because it would make way more sense geographically to have Cal and Stanford join a western division of the Big Ten than to be the lone western teams in the ACC. It just feels like the BigTen’s position of “we want to keep it at 18 teams and not 20” is a BS negotiating ploy. What is the difference between having 18 or 20? All they really care about are the splits of media revenue
Logistically, 20 would certainly be better than 18. It really is about Fox having a fixed media payout and no one wanting to make their own shares smaller.
But if Stanford and Cal really are offering a highly reduced payout package for the initial years (which they will fund through their own donors) then that might change the calculation.
I wonder the same because it would make way more sense geographically to have Cal and Stanford join a western division of the Big Ten than to be the lone western teams in the ACC. It just feels like the BigTen’s position of “we want to keep it at 18 teams and not 20” is a BS negotiating ploy. What is the difference between having 18 or 20? All they really care about are the splits of media revenue
Logistically, 20 would certainly be better than 18. It really is about Fox having a fixed media payout and no one wanting to make their own shares smaller.
But if Stanford and Cal really are offering a highly reduced payout package for the initial years (which they will fund through their own donors) then that might change the calculation.