I don’t understand how the northwestern schools add enough value to the B1G when they don’t reportedly add enough for the ACC
ACC officials are not interested.
saturdayroad.com
If Oregon and Washington added $40 mil per school, they’d pull our average up slightly and the B1G average down significantly if they were added to either conference. Apparently, they don’t even pull the ACC average per school up.
If I was the Big 10 I'd be looking at it as a "what does a league need to survive long-term" and I think geographical dispersion is an advantage. In thirty years, an SEC that's purely southeast+Texas seems to be a much less nationally-marketable product with a much lower potential population to pull subscribers from than a national Big 10.
But I think there's a definite short-term cost.
Part of the advantage the B1G has is that their TV deal is with Fox, CBS, and NBC. Those networks aren't in the financial bind that ESPN is in. Leveraging the increase across three networks is beneficial for everyone, whereas ESPN would be the sole fish on the financial hook if we added teams.
If they aren't yet I'd be shocked if they aren't soon. Paramount (CBS) is losing money. I think Fox is too, but I might be wrong about who owns which parts of that now. Comcast and Disney aren't, and Comcast has some advantages over Disney by owning a lot of cable infrastructure that's useful for internet even if people cancel cable, but they're still facing a big loss of that cable revenue soon.
But I think given how far behind Fox/CBS/NBC are in terms of overall sports content library compared to ESPN, it might still make a lot more sense for them to be aggressive rather than standing pat. If Disney wanted to throw more money at ESPN they could, but if they see it as a long-term-money-loser at today's media rights costs, then that would catch up with the others eventually too.