MUScoop

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/27271214-419/big-ten-makes-big-mistake-with-dc-tourney.html#.U2pUMvldV1Z

"This is where the college athetics world is going. To head off a players' union, the schools are insisting athlete-students they are not employees. But concessions are already being made, and college sports will move on just as sure as baseball moved on when it lost the reserve clause.

Stay tuned. Delany's next move will be adding the 15th and 16th schools to the Big Ten. This will be needed to pay for increased labor costs that will stem from players organizing in one form or another.

Four 16-team leagues. And good luck if you're not among those 64.

Nobody is better suited to deal with all of this upheaval than Jim Delany."

Herb Gould wrote that.  Gould is the typical cranky old journalist who really can't figure out how and why things change.  This article is a typical example.  He talks about how dumb Delany is for moving the tournament for one year to Washington because "students from Madison or Champaign" won't be able to get there...but then talks about all the great moves he has made.

Look, the B10 might add two more members.  But I would guess not anytime soon.  Mostly because the good members are tied so legally and financially into other conferences. 

But this sounds like an old, cranky guy article more than anything.

UConn will be knocking on that door and ringing the doorbell all night.  They may have to play the "Fairfield County" Connecticut is in the New York City television market card.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 07, 2014, 11:01:50 AM
UConn will be knocking on that door and ringing the doorbell all night.  They may have to play the "Fairfield County" Connecticut is in the New York City television market card.

Cue Chicos - 3,2,1... UConn not an AAU (or whatever) member.

Coming announcements in next 60 days?


"So, embrace change, Big Ten Nation. Time is marching on in this new Big Ten world that now will feature an anchor event on the Eastern Seaboard. Expect more, as Delany has alluded to coming announcements in the next "60 days." Some of those surely will entail news of events out East."

http://btn.com/2014/05/06/dienhart-d-c-big-ten-tourney-will-be-big-change/

Or maybe Gould is right and I'm an idiot...time will tell.

AAC better be ready to be irrelevant in basketball. If they're expanding East there's no one else except UConn available consider.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 07, 2014, 11:34:15 AM
Or maybe Gould is right and I'm an idiot...time will tell.

But there's still the possibility that Gould is wrong and you're an idiot. right? ;D

Quote from: brandx on May 07, 2014, 11:52:00 AM
But there's still the possibility that Gould is wrong and you're an idiot. right? ;D

Clearly.

So who would be the 16th team? Other than UConn, who else would even be close to the profile of the Big10/12/14/16?

Quote from: Desert_warrior on May 07, 2014, 11:58:10 AM
So who would be the 16th team? Other than UConn, who else would even be close to the profile of the Big10/12/14/16?

.......that's also not already locked into a "grant of media rights" deal.

I don't think it would be UConn.  They would probably try to pry UVa, UNC or Georgia Tech out of the ACC and hope that the increased television rights that they will get annually will make their exit payments to the ACC seem like worthwhile investments.

Quote from: Desert_warrior on May 07, 2014, 11:58:10 AM
So who would be the 16th team? Other than UConn, who else would even be close to the profile of the Big10/12/14/16?

Thinking out loud ... maybe they think Maryland is going to win its lawsuit against the ACC over paying an exit fee. 

If so, it's open season on the ACC!  Hello "The U" (Miami), Hello UNC. Hello Georgia Tech (Atlanta) and so on.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 07, 2014, 12:06:21 PM
I don't think it would be UConn.  They would probably try to pry UVa, UNC or Georgia Tech out of the ACC and hope that the increased television rights that they will get annually will make their exit payments to the ACC seem like worthwhile investments.

Can't see that happening at all, unless the Maryland case opens the flood gates and allows schools to leave w/out paying $50+ million. UConn is the easiest add, and is the best response to the ACC trying to claim NYC market. Penn St, Rutgers, UConn and Maryland is a better footprint from simply an alumni-based viewpoint than Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College and VaTech(?)

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 07, 2014, 01:13:57 PM
Can't see that happening at all, unless the Maryland case opens the flood gates and allows schools to leave w/out paying $50+ million. UConn is the easiest add, and is the best response to the ACC trying to claim NYC market. Penn St, Rutgers, UConn and Maryland is a better footprint from simply an alumni-based viewpoint than Syracuse, Pitt, Boston College and VaTech(?)

First of all, I don't think UConn adds much of anything. 

Second, $50 million may not seem that much if the B10 television contracts net each school $40 million per year.  (And they might.)

Maybe they will go after Va Tech because of its basketball program. 

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 07, 2014, 01:18:09 PM

First of all, I don't think UConn adds much of anything. 

Second, $50 million may not seem that much if the B10 television contracts net each school $40 million per year.  (And they might.)

Because.....Rutgers and Maryland do? Flagship state universities are valuable. I'm sure they'd like to grab UNC. I'm also sure they can't.

Actually I'm probably wrong on $50 million. Maryland got out BEFORE the GOR. Could be much much worse.

The B10 is a television network, not an athletic conference, and they will make decisions that allow them to create content and generate revenue.

That's it.

It's not more complicated than that.

Forget geography, forget academics, forget traditional rivalries.

It's a for-profit-style business model.

Keep that in mind whenever you read ANYTHING about the Big10. Everything will make sense then.  

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 07, 2014, 01:28:19 PM
Because.....Rutgers and Maryland do? Flagship state universities are valuable. I'm sure they'd like to grab UNC. I'm also sure they can't.

Actually I'm probably wrong on $50 million. Maryland got out BEFORE the GOR. Could be much much worse.

Well you are right about the Grant of Rights.  That will make things much more difficult than what Maryland is dealing with.

And that is why when all is said and done, I don't think they do much of anything wrt expansion

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 07, 2014, 01:32:28 PM

Well you are right about the Grant of Rights.  That will make things much more difficult than what Maryland is dealing with.

And that is why when all is said and done, I don't think they do much of anything wrt expansion

They could, if they really wanted to, grab UConn and Mizzou tomorrow. SEC is the only conference without any penalty fee or GOR.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 07, 2014, 01:18:09 PM

First of all, I don't think UConn adds much of anything. 

Second, $50 million may not seem that much if the B10 television contracts net each school $40 million per year.  (And they might.)

They add to the New York City TV market as Fairfield County, Connecticut is situated in the New York City television market.  UConn draws better than Rutgers.  See the ticket rush at MSG this past NCAA.  SNY, the New York based regional network bought the broadcast rights to UConn women's basketball as well as having a separate deal with UConn for football & basketball coach's shows as well as broadcasting any football games not televised elsewhere.  Notice that neither Syracuse or Rutgers got such such a deal with any of the NYC regional sports networks. 

UConn may get more interesting to the Big10 when cable operators in New Jersey decide to pay higher subscription fees for the Big10 Network, but the NYC cable operators say no way for Rutgers.  And then we'll see how much the the AAU thing matters.  UConn is a good academic school despite no AAU, yet.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 07, 2014, 11:06:18 AM
Cue Chicos - 3,2,1... UConn not an AAU (or whatever) member.

LOL!!!!

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 07, 2014, 01:31:36 PM
The B10 is a television network, not an athletic conference, and they will make decisions that allow them to create content and generate revenue.

That's it.

It's not more complicated than that.

Forget geography, forget academics, forget traditional rivalries.

It's a for-profit-style business model.

Keep that in mind whenever you read ANYTHING about the Big10. Everything will make sense then.  

This!

Again they plan (rumored) to be looking to create a 30 school coast-to-coast conference.  Then they will use the BTN to bid on NBA, MLB, NHL etc.  Remember that ESPN started as a venture to broadcast Uconn basketball.  That's their model.

The Big 10 is intent on world domination.  Someday we will live in the "The United States Of Big 10"

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 07, 2014, 01:18:09 PM

First of all, I don't think UConn adds much of anything. 

Second, $50 million may not seem that much if the B10 television contracts net each school $40 million per year.  (And they might.)

Yea they only add the most titles in mens and womens hoops over the past 20 years.  No big deal

Quote from: Lennys Tap on May 07, 2014, 11:06:18 AM
Cue Chicos - 3,2,1... UConn not an AAU (or whatever) member.

I'm just telling you what the Big Ten folks have told me over the years.  Some of us worked on the launch of the Big Ten channel, and we deal with some of these folks all the time.  Could things change, of course.  Fact is, the Big Ten has NEVER added a school that wasn't a member of the AAU and the politics associated with that status.  Nebraska went on to lose that status, but they had it when they were invited.

If the Big Ten's dream vision is to add UConn football, knock their socks off.  UConn basketball is the proverbial drop in the ocean in ratings and money.

Quote from: KenoshaWarrior on May 07, 2014, 02:38:37 PM
Yea they only add the most titles in mens and womens hoops over the past 20 years.  No big deal

This. Never understood how Boston College, Pitt, and Lousiville are apparently attractive candidates for conferences to add, but not UConn.

Quote from: Heisenberg on May 07, 2014, 02:38:11 PM
This!

Again they plan (rumored) to be looking to create a 30 school coast-to-coast conference.  Then they will use the BTN to bid on NBA, MLB, NHL etc.  Remember that ESPN started as a venture to broadcast Uconn basketball.  That's their model.

The Big 10 is intent on world domination.  Someday we will live in the "The United States Of Big 10"

Is this in teal?  Number one, that's not why ESPN started.  Number two, BTN for the rates they charge cannot afford any of the content you are talking about.  I asked last time, where is this 30 school rumor coming from? 

Quote from: Heisenberg on May 07, 2014, 02:38:11 PM
This!

Remember that ESPN started as a venture to broadcast Uconn basketball.  That's their model.

Started to broadcast Hartford Whalers NHL Hockey.

Quote from: Desert_warrior on May 07, 2014, 11:58:10 AM
So who would be the 16th team? Other than UConn, who else would even be close to the profile of the Big10/12/14/16?

UMass?

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 07, 2014, 02:48:44 PM
This. Never understood how Boston College, Pitt, and Lousiville are apparently attractive candidates for conferences to add, but not UConn.

Simple.  TV ratings and football.  The NE, generally speaking, doesn't give a rip about college football.  The ratings are not good and then you throw in a program like UConn and their football is unattractive.  Yes, they went to the Fiesta Bowl and were arguably the worst quality team in Fiesta Bowl history, or certainly since the 1970's.

Basketball doesn't mean a hill of beans folks, it just doesn't....not in the grand scheme of things.  Its nice to say, certainly the conference will tout it, etc, but that is reality.  Put another way, Pitt football, Louisville football and Syracuse football added the revenue upside for the ACC, not their 3 basketball programs.  People don't want to hear it, but the numbers aren't even close.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 02:47:03 PM
I'm just telling you what the Big Ten folks have told me over the years.  Some of us worked on the launch of the Big Ten channel, and we deal with some of these folks all the time.  Could things change, of course.  Fact is, the Big Ten has NEVER added a school that wasn't a member of the AAU and the politics associated with that status.  Nebraska went on to lose that status, but they had it when they were invited.

If the Big Ten's dream vision is to add UConn football, knock their socks off.  UConn basketball is the proverbial drop in the ocean in ratings and money.

Well, too bad we know that's bulls***. You really want to tell me the B1G isn't letting Notre Dame in because of AAU status?

According to you, they're supposedly motivated by the money, market size, ratings and football dollars....BUT only if they're part of an elitist and arbitrarily chosen academic group. One of these things is not like the other....

The B10 already invited ND to join despite the fact they don't have AAU membership.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 02:53:26 PM
Simple.  TV ratings and football.  The NE, generally speaking, doesn't give a rip about college football.  The ratings are not good and then you throw in a program like UConn and their football is unattractive.  Yes, they went to the Fiesta Bowl and were arguably the worst quality team in Fiesta Bowl history, or certainly since the 1970's.

Basketball doesn't mean a hill of beans folks, it just doesn't....not in the grand scheme of things.  Its nice to say, certainly the conference will tout it, etc, but that is reality.  Put another way, Pitt football, Louisville football and Syracuse football added the revenue upside for the ACC, not their 3 basketball programs.  People don't want to hear it, but the numbers aren't even close.

You're right... but keep in mind the search for additional content and incremental revenue won't stop... ever.

Adding (insert school) might be a drop in the bucket, but if that makes for more content, and more potential eyeballs, they will consider it.

Football is obviously the most profitable, and it isn't close. AT ALL.

But, that doesn't mean they don't want, or can't find profitable content in other areas. Hockey, hoops, baseball, lacrosse, etc.

That's not to say they are actually considering UCONN, but the B10 isn't going to stop growing... They are going to look for revenue streams wherever they can get it.  

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 07, 2014, 03:01:49 PM
Well, too bad we know that's bulls***. You really want to tell me the B1G isn't letting Notre Dame in because of AAU status?

According to you, they're supposedly motivated by the money, market size, ratings and football dollars....BUT only if they're part of an elitist and arbitrarily chosen academic group. One of these things is not like the other....

The AAU argument and the CIC arguments are very real.  They would make an exception for ND because no one doubts ND's academic standing.  But they wouldn't for Louisville or Cinci.  The nice part about being the king (and make no mistake, the Big Ten is king) is you do not have to be choosy.  Nebraska is not a member but was when the Big Ten admitted them.

Quote from: The Lens on May 07, 2014, 03:12:08 PM
The AAU argument and the CIC arguments are very real.  They would make an exception for ND because no one doubts ND's academic standing.  But they wouldn't for Louisville or Cinci.  The nice part about being the king (and make no mistake, the Big Ten is king) is you do not have to be choosy.  Nebraska is not a member but was when the Big Ten admitted them.

The AAU thing is not an issue.

I mean, they may SAY it's an issue, but the reality is that it's not.

If/when (insert non-AAU school) can add a significant amount of revenue to the network (again, please don't call it a "conference"), they will be added, and the B10 will go out of it's way to say that it's some sort of special exception or something (like it would for ND).

It's about $, guys.

Don't buy any of this other stuff.

Quote from: The Lens on May 07, 2014, 03:12:08 PM
The AAU argument and the CIC arguments are very real.  They would make an exception for ND because no one doubts ND's academic standing.  But they wouldn't for Louisville or Cinci.  The nice part about being the king (and make no mistake, the Big Ten is king) is you do not have to be choosy.  Nebraska is not a member but was when the Big Ten admitted them.

Then who are they going to add? Seriously. Are we pretending there's just an endless amount of candidates that fit this narrow requirement?

They're going to 16 at some point, and there's only so many schools left they can actually add. And I don't think any of them are in conferences with the enormous GOR ties...or are 2 time zones away.

So that leaves Missouri, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt and....Buffalo. None of the others play football.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 07, 2014, 03:24:58 PM
Then who are they going to add? Seriously. Are we pretending there's just an endless amount of candidates that fit this narrow requirement?

They're going to 16 at some point, and there's only so many schools left they can actually add. And I don't think any of them are in conferences with the enormous GOR ties...or are 2 time zones away.

So that leaves Missouri, Texas A&M, Vanderbilt and....Buffalo. None of the others play football.

Purely hypothetical only - if Missouri did leave for the Big10 who would the SEC replace them with?  With the logical candiates, we run into GOR issues once again?

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 07, 2014, 03:01:49 PM
Well, too bad we know that's bulls***. You really want to tell me the B1G isn't letting Notre Dame in because of AAU status?

According to you, they're supposedly motivated by the money, market size, ratings and football dollars....BUT only if they're part of an elitist and arbitrarily chosen academic group. One of these things is not like the other....

UCONN is no ND, I can't say it any simpler than that. There are exceptions to everything, and Notre Dame would be that exception, but even ND has raised the cackles of the academic side of the house.

Ignore it if you wish.  Yes, things can change, but it has been a big deal in the past and in my dealings with them, it's still a big deal for the Presidents of the universities.  They are the ones making the decisions.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-13/sports/ct-spt-0614-aau-big-ten-expansion--20100613_1_aau-nebraska-chancellor-harvey-perlman-big-ten-members

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2010/05/23/academic-coalition-is-key-but-what-is-it.html

http://www.nj.com/rutgers/index.ssf/2010/05/big_ten_expansion_talk_puts_sp.html

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/68129/how-to-get-smart-about-b1g-expansion

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12511/big-tens-aau-ties-should-factor-in-expansion



UCONN adds very little to the $$$ equation either.  So let's say UCONN gets the AAU status, which they have been working on, does it help or hurt them?  I say it helps them.  However, you still have the $$$ question, what does UCONN bring to them in terms of money?  Not much.  Not the way the TV contracts are laid out for pay tv subscribers, and certainly not in the ratings department for OTA $$$.

If the Grant of Rights deal with the ACC wasn't in play, the Big Ten's more perfect fits would be North Carolina, Virginia.  Of course, in the Big 12, KU and Texas are the out there, but don't see Texas needing to do it since they have an unequal rev share already and the Big Ten would be loathe to let Texas keep more of a share than others.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 07, 2014, 03:09:04 PM
You're right... but keep in mind the search for additional content and incremental revenue won't stop... ever.

Adding (insert school) might be a drop in the bucket, but if that makes for more content, and more potential eyeballs, they will consider it.

Football is obviously the most profitable, and it isn't close. AT ALL.

But, that doesn't mean they don't want, or can't find profitable content in other areas. Hockey, hoops, baseball, lacrosse, etc.

That's not to say they are actually considering UCONN, but the B10 isn't going to stop growing... They are going to look for revenue streams wherever they can get it.  

It doesn't stop, but it isn't valued the same way.  The pie doesn't grow forever either.  So adding other schools with minimal return is not going to make the other schools happy campers, because it dilutes their share.  Adding baseball, lacrosse, hockey adds hours of content, it adds almost no eyeballs and very little monetary value.  Not enough to justify carving the pie into thinner slices.  UNLESS, they believe they can command a ton more money from the TV rights holders, which means higher bills for customers, which means more people ticked off, especially those that don't like sports.  If they leave the platforms, the conference doesn't get their money because these are not fixed rate deals, they are per sub deals, or on the network side tied to ratings and ad sales.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 07, 2014, 03:17:06 PM
The AAU thing is not an issue.

I mean, they may SAY it's an issue, but the reality is that it's not.

If/when (insert non-AAU school) can add a significant amount of revenue to the network (again, please don't call it a "conference"), they will be added, and the B10 will go out of it's way to say that it's some sort of special exception or something (like it would for ND).

It's about $, guys.

Don't buy any of this other stuff.

Sigh.

Uhm, ok.  Again, ignore if you wish.  I deal with these guys all the time. It is real, exceptions can be made, but it is real.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 03:37:28 PM
UCONN is no ND, I can't say it any simpler than that. There are exceptions to everything, and Notre Dame would be that exception, but even ND has raised the cackles of the academic side of the house.

Ignore it if you wish.  Yes, things can change, but it has been a big deal in the past and in my dealings with them, it's still a big deal for the Presidents of the universities.  They are the ones making the decisions.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-13/sports/ct-spt-0614-aau-big-ten-expansion--20100613_1_aau-nebraska-chancellor-harvey-perlman-big-ten-members

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/sports/2010/05/23/academic-coalition-is-key-but-what-is-it.html

http://www.nj.com/rutgers/index.ssf/2010/05/big_ten_expansion_talk_puts_sp.html

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/68129/how-to-get-smart-about-b1g-expansion

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/12511/big-tens-aau-ties-should-factor-in-expansion



UCONN adds very little to the $$$ equation either.  So let's say UCONN gets the AAU status, which they have been working on, does it help or hurt them?  I say it helps them.  However, you still have the $$$ question, what does UCONN bring to them in terms of money?  Not much.  Not the way the TV contracts are laid out for pay tv subscribers, and certainly not in the ratings department for OTA $$$.

If the Grant of Rights deal with the ACC wasn't in play, the Big Ten's more perfect fits would be North Carolina, Virginia.  Of course, in the Big 12, KU and Texas are the out there, but don't see Texas needing to do it since they have an unequal rev share already and the Big Ten would be loathe to let Texas keep more of a share than others.

Nobody has said the AAU thing hasn't been a big deal in the past. That's fine.

But, if Texas wanted to join for an equal share, and Texas wasn't an AAU school, the B10 would take them in a second.

So, the reality is, AAU isn't as important as $. So, when a school that isn't AAU can bring the B10 NETWORK a lot of $, they will be admitted.

UCONN isn't likely to be that school, but you get the idea.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 07, 2014, 03:36:14 PM
Purely hypothetical only - if Missouri did leave for the Big10 who would the SEC replace them with?  With the logical candiates, we run into GOR issues once again?

Cincy's lucky day? SMU? Memphis? Maybe they don't and stay with 13.

As Sultan said earlier, if a someone really wants in they can probably make it happen given what these schools are soon to be making. I am curious though about how Ironclad some of these GOR are. The rumor about the Big 12's GOR is if more than 25% or 40% (I forget, but it was essentially 4 teams) of the league leaves then the contract has an out or something. So the Pac-16 can still happen (UT, TT, OU, OSU)

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 03:43:45 PM
Sigh.

Uhm, ok.  Again, ignore if you wish.  I deal with these guys all the time. It is real, exceptions can be made, but it is real.

I'm telling you, they will take a non-AAU member if they think it adds a lot of revenue.

That's it.

To put it another way: I'll never work for a tobacco company! But, if they paid me 10mil per year, I'd probably make an "exception".

So really, my moral stand is limited by my greed.

Same for BTN. PROFIT is like a drug. The schools are getting it. They are becoming addicted to it. They aren't going to magically stop looking for it.  

They will make "exceptions" and sell the decision using a bunch of PR tactics.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 03:37:28 PM

UCONN adds very little to the $$$ equation either.  So let's say UCONN gets the AAU status, which they have been working on, does it help or hurt them?  I say it helps them.  However, you still have the $$$ question, what does UCONN bring to them in terms of money?  Not much.  Not the way the TV contracts are laid out for pay tv subscribers, and certainly not in the ratings department for OTA $$$.

And this is where I get confused. Okay, you say UConn adds very little (I somewhat disagree that BBall is sooo insignificant but okay). How does Rutgers add enough? Maryland? At least Nebraska at least made sense on the football level. I just don't get people saying UConn would never be added because of football while ignoring they essentially just did that with a school with an even lower athletic brand in Rutgers.

the amount of subscribers their TV markets bring in made it all worth enough $$$$

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 07, 2014, 03:36:14 PM
Purely hypothetical only - if Missouri did leave for the Big10 who would the SEC replace them with?  With the logical candiates, we run into GOR issues once again?

Memphis?

Just spitballing here.

EDIT: Now that I think of it, they could probably poach from the Big XII. Any of those teams would probably leave for the SEC

From Jim Delany, Commissioner of the Big Ten.   This pretty much echoes the folks I deal with.  It's a big deal, it's essential to their criteria.  It doesn't mean it can't change, but so far they have stayed with it because the presidents of the universities want it that way.  It's an exclusive club.


"It's pretty obvious to us that the paradigm has shifted," Delany said. "It's not your father's Big Ten. It's probably not your father's ACC. The paradigm shift is that other conferences had [expanded], we had chosen not to, and we explored the collaboration [with the Pac-12]. It couldn't be executed. The Pac-12 couldn't do what they thought they could do. ...

"We said, how do we participate in the new paradigm? Our answer was let's look at contiguous states first, let's look at AAU members first, and let's figure out if there is a way to continue to bridge from Penn State into the Mid-Atlantic. Is there a way to collaborate with like institutions, to grow our footprint, to compete and to position ourselves for the future? We determined this is the best way to accomplish those ends."

and

"What we focused on and continue to focus on is the quality of the institution," Delany said. "It's membership in AAU. It's resilience. It's tradition. We believe then, and now, that (Rutgers) will be a great member of the Big Ten conference, notwithstanding the fact that they had a number of high-profile situations that have received a lot of coverage.

and

"AAU membership is a part of who we are. It's an important part of who we are."


Name one other conference that mentions AAU during expansion, let alone one of the first things it mentions.  It's a big deal.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 07, 2014, 03:50:05 PM
And this is where I get confused. Okay, you say UConn adds very little (I somewhat disagree that BBall is sooo insignificant but okay). How does Rutgers add enough? Maryland? At least Nebraska at least made sense on the football level. I just don't get people saying UConn would never be added because of football while ignoring they essentially just did that with a school with an even lower athletic brand in Rutgers.

Rutgers delivers the NYC television market and Maryland delivers Baltimore/DC.  That's why those schools were picked - not because of great football tradition.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 07, 2014, 03:44:34 PM
Nobody has said the AAU thing hasn't been a big deal in the past. That's fine.

But, if Texas wanted to join for an equal share, and Texas wasn't an AAU school, the B10 would take them in a second.

So, the reality is, AAU isn't as important as $. So, when a school that isn't AAU can bring the B10 NETWORK a lot of $, they will be admitted.

UCONN isn't likely to be that school, but you get the idea.

But Texas is an AAU school, that's the point.  Better example for you would be Florida State, national champions in football, fertile recruiting grounds in the state.  If FSU wanted to join for an equal share, do you think the Big Ten would say yes?  How about Oklahoma?  LSU?  There are many big schools that can bring dollars to bear, but they aren't invited for considered for a number of reasons.

You are saying the AAU isn't as important based on your beliefs.  To this date, zero schools ever accepting an invitation to the Big Ten were not AAU members.  Their people have said continuously how important it is, at the top of their list of criteria.  When talking to them about where their footprint might go in expansion to determine if you want to sign a contract to carry their network, these are the kinds of due diligence questions that are asked.  Are you expanding?  If you were, who are candidates, what is the criteria?  Etc, etc, because a television broadcaster has to consider the what if's since they are on the hook for future dollars potentially to be paid.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 07, 2014, 03:50:05 PM
And this is where I get confused. Okay, you say UConn adds very little (I somewhat disagree that BBall is sooo insignificant but okay). How does Rutgers add enough? Maryland? At least Nebraska at least made sense on the football level. I just don't get people saying UConn would never be added because of football while ignoring they essentially just did that with a school with an even lower athletic brand in Rutgers.

Television markets.  Forget ratings, I'm talking pay tv subscribers.  When BTN went and grabbed Rutgers, it trips a clause in the Big Ten Network deals that the rates MSOs have to pay for the right to carry that network is different for a state \ territory that has a Big Ten school.  So when they add Maryland and Rutgers, instantly means more money per subscriber from DISH, AT&T, DIRECTV, Comcast, etc, etc because the states of New Jersey, New York, Maryland and District of Columbia change the rates.   Adding UConn is peanuts in comparison.

Quote from: ChuckyChip on May 07, 2014, 05:02:26 PM
Rutgers delivers the NYC television market and Maryland delivers Baltimore/DC.  That's why those schools were picked - not because of great football tradition.

Don't think of DMA (NYC or Baltimore or DC), think of territories.  DMAs is more applicable to advertising benefits and market ratings.  Though you are correct those DMAs are added, it goes well beyond just the DMAs, but to territorial carve outs that extend well beyond the DMAs.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 05:06:05 PM
But Texas is an AAU school, that's the point.  Better example for you would be Florida State, national champions in football, fertile recruiting grounds in the state.  If FSU wanted to join for an equal share, do you think the Big Ten would say yes?  How about Oklahoma?  LSU?  There are many big schools that can bring dollars to bear, but they aren't invited for considered for a number of reasons.

You are saying the AAU isn't as important based on your beliefs.  To this date, zero schools ever accepting an invitation to the Big Ten were not AAU members.  Their people have said continuously how important it is, at the top of their list of criteria.  When talking to them about where their footprint might go in expansion to determine if you want to sign a contract to carry their network, these are the kinds of due diligence questions that are asked.  Are you expanding?  If you were, who are candidates, what is the criteria?  Etc, etc, because a television broadcaster has to consider the what if's since they are on the hook for future dollars potentially to be paid.

Fair enough.

Let me put it another way:

10-15 years ago, the thought of adding Nebraska, Maryland and/or Rutgers seemed INSANE, right?

If you asked any of the Presidents back then, they would have laughed at the idea, and said something about B10 "traditional rivalries" and whatnot.

Flash forward to today, and look at what is happening. They have expanded eastward, and they continue to do so.

So, in the end, they can "say" a lot of things, but large sums of $ tend to change an organization's "belief". AND, organizations that don't evolve, get left by the wayside.

The Big10 Network will say they want AAU schools, and honestly, I think they do. That's fine.

But, a school like ND (which isn't AAU) would be accepted with an "exception".

How long before they take somebody like Oklahoma/Alabama/LSU/FSU? You can say "never", that that's fine, but I think the horse if out of the barn, and the television network is calling the shots now.

"Hey U presidents, we can make $50 million more per year (each) if we admit these schools. How does that sound?"

"Let's make an exception."

It might not happen today. It might not happen tomorrow. It might not happen for 5 years. But, AAU isn't necessarily a deciding factor. It's $.

Notre Dame proved that, right?

So will the Big 12 go under? Only 10 schools right now.

Guns, anything is possible.  I'm going on the data thus far and what has been the approach thus far.  Things can always change, like the climate..it always changes.


To be clear, the BTN isn't picking the schools.  The Presidents decide.  The importance of the BTN comes into what rates they receive.  What I have gathered over the years is the presidents, ultimately, are academics first.  They certainly understand the importance of athletics and money, but they love their club and they want like minded members in the club.  Elitism is important to them.  They want to swing that member and say we are in the same club as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and there are only 60 of us in the country.  There are exceptions in life, ND would be one of them, though plenty in the Big Ten on the academic side want no part of them (religious, private, not a great research university).  That being said, they would be the first exception to receive an invite without that status.  I doubt anytime in the near future the Big Ten needs to surrender that elitist approach and lower their standards for some of the schools out there.  The upside isn't there.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 07, 2014, 02:51:48 PM
Started to broadcast Hartford Whalers NHL Hockey.

That is correct too.  From the ESPN Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ESPN

ESPN was founded by Bill Rasmussen, his son Scott Rasmussen and Aetna insurance agent Ed Eagan.[1] Bill, who had an affinity with sports for much of his life, was fired from his position as the communications manager for the New England Whalers in 1978.[1] During his tenure with the Whalers, Rasmussen had met Eagan who displayed an interest in building a career in television. Eagan approached Bill with the idea of creating a monthly cable show covering Connecticut sports and was curious to see if the Whalers would be interested in being the main feature on the show.[1]

Though discouraged by his firing, Rasmussen and Eagan began to discuss a new course; Rasmussen's original idea was to create a cable television network that focused on covering all sporting events in the state of Connecticut (for example, the Whalers, Bristol Red Sox and the Connecticut Huskies), rather than just one team as Eagan proposed.[1] Rasmussen knew little about cable television at the time and with under 20 percent of homes receiving cable, the task to create such a network was tedious.[2]

Quote from: Heisenberg on May 07, 2014, 07:50:49 PM
That is correct too.  From the ESPN Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ESPN

ESPN was founded by Bill Rasmussen, his son Scott Rasmussen and Aetna insurance agent Ed Eagan.[1] Bill, who had an affinity with sports for much of his life, was fired from his position as the communications manager for the New England Whalers in 1978.[1] During his tenure with the Whalers, Rasmussen had met Eagan who displayed an interest in building a career in television. Eagan approached Bill with the idea of creating a monthly cable show covering Connecticut sports and was curious to see if the Whalers would be interested in being the main feature on the show.[1]

Though discouraged by his firing, Rasmussen and Eagan began to discuss a new course; Rasmussen's original idea was to create a cable television network that focused on covering all sporting events in the state of Connecticut (for example, the Whalers, Bristol Red Sox and the Connecticut Huskies), rather than just one team as Eagan proposed.[1] Rasmussen knew little about cable television at the time and with under 20 percent of homes receiving cable, the task to create such a network was tedious.[2]

Maybe I misread your original post as I inferred that you were saying it became a network with one of the purposes to broadcast UConn stuff.  There were a number of ideas for the network, as you mention above.  A few more are discussed in one of ESPN history books that came out.  Many of the original ideas were snuffed out for obvious reasons.  ESPN did, in fact, use UConn sports as part of a test program back in 1978 to show they could pull this idea off.  Their first actual broadcast was in Sept 1979, however, and by the time the got rolling many of those original ideas were put to rest in actual execution.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 06:26:51 PM
Guns, anything is possible.  I'm going on the data thus far and what has been the approach thus far.  Things can always change, like the climate..it always changes.


To be clear, the BTN isn't picking the schools.  The Presidents decide.  The importance of the BTN comes into what rates they receive.  What I have gathered over the years is the presidents, ultimately, are academics first.  They certainly understand the importance of athletics and money, but they love their club and they want like minded members in the club.  Elitism is important to them.  They want to swing that member and say we are in the same club as Stanford, Yale, Harvard and there are only 60 of us in the country.  There are exceptions in life, ND would be one of them, though plenty in the Big Ten on the academic side want no part of them (religious, private, not a great research university).  That being said, they would be the first exception to receive an invite without that status.  I doubt anytime in the near future the Big Ten needs to surrender that elitist approach and lower their standards for some of the schools out there.  The upside isn't there.

I get it. Honest. I know they want it to be an exclusive club, but even 10 yrs ago, the current evolution was unimaginable.

Why the relatively quick and sudden change to how the B10 operates?

Cha-Ching Baby!

Why did apple get in the phone business? To make money. Why does Cadillac make an electric car? To make money. Why does phillip morris make smokeless tobacco? To make money. The Big 10 never cared about hockey. Now they have it.

Companies evolve. They don't do something one day, and the next day, their doing it. That's how it works.

The Big 10 is no longer a "conference". It's a business. BIG BUSINESS. They are going to keep trying to find more revenue. At some point, the idea of non-AAU schools will come up. I don't think that rule is written in stone. Again, ND is proof of that. 

As far as the presidents calling the shots, you're right.

But, here's where I'm going with this:

The schools REALLY LIKE making a lot of $. And eventually, when BTN says "Hey, we should change our football schedule to all spring games because we could make 500 billion dollars on a new TV deal", you can bet your ass the school presidents will sign off. So who is really calling the shots at that point? The Presidents, or the Network?

$. $. $.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 07, 2014, 10:58:29 AM
Herb Gould wrote that.  Gould is the typical cranky old journalist who really can't figure out how and why things change.  This article is a typical example.  He talks about how dumb Delany is for moving the tournament for one year to Washington because "students from Madison or Champaign" won't be able to get there...but then talks about all the great moves he has made.

Look, the B10 might add two more members.  But I would guess not anytime soon.  Mostly because the good members are tied so legally and financially into other conferences.  

But this sounds like an old, cranky guy article more than anything.

(http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3362933/grumpy-o.gif)

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 07, 2014, 11:54:44 AM

Clearly.

But maybe we are all the idiots and just do not understand you are right.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 07, 2014, 05:09:11 PM
Television markets.  Forget ratings, I'm talking pay tv subscribers.  When BTN went and grabbed Rutgers, it trips a clause in the Big Ten Network deals that the rates MSOs have to pay for the right to carry that network is different for a state \ territory that has a Big Ten school.  So when they add Maryland and Rutgers, instantly means more money per subscriber from DISH, AT&T, DIRECTV, Comcast, etc, etc because the states of New Jersey, New York, Maryland and District of Columbia change the rates.   Adding UConn is peanuts in comparison.

Sooooo, New Jersey= NYC (a big stretch), but UConn only = Connecticut? They're the biggest collegiate athletic brand in New England right now, so it cannot be 'peanuts'. Not to mention their proximity to NYC (it's called the Tri-State area and Rutgers certainly doesn't give it to you by yourself - no school does).

There's this weird, not supported in any factual way, bias against UConn because that's what we've been told to believe (I remember the same thing against Rutgers ever being added).

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 08, 2014, 08:35:22 AM
Sooooo, New Jersey= NYC (a big stretch), but UConn only = Connecticut? They're the biggest collegiate athletic brand in New England right now, so it cannot be 'peanuts'. Not to mention their proximity to NYC (it's called the Tri-State area and Rutgers certainly doesn't give it to you by yourself - no school does).

There's this weird, not supported in any factual way, bias against UConn because that's what we've been told to believe (I remember the same thing against Rutgers ever being added).

I'm doing a poor job of explaining it apparently.    Basically, Rutgers already achieves the upside of what Uconn can mostly bring.  The incremental dollars were gained by Rutgers, there isn't much left for Uconn to deliver.  Does Uconn add a little value, sure....but at what cost and what dilution to the other schools?  If you only grow the pie a little bit, but everyone has to take another hit in the splits, that's a problem.  Rutgers adds New Jersey and New York for Big Ten Network dollars.  UConn's addition does not "re-add" New York, you get CT which is ok but pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

Could it happen, sure, but adding them is adding them for the sake of adding them as the incremental $$ are small.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 08, 2014, 08:35:22 AM
Sooooo, New Jersey= NYC (a big stretch), but UConn only = Connecticut? They're the biggest collegiate athletic brand in New England right now, so it cannot be 'peanuts'. Not to mention their proximity to NYC (it's called the Tri-State area and Rutgers certainly doesn't give it to you by yourself - no school does).

There's this weird, not supported in any factual way, bias against UConn because that's what we've been told to believe (I remember the same thing against Rutgers ever being added).

Media markets.  NYC is covered by Rutgers.  It doesn't matter if they are any good.  UConn may have a ton of fans in NYC, but they aren't adding the B1G Network to anymore TVs.  It isn't about ratings, its about subscriptions... and NYC is already covered.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 07, 2014, 09:53:17 PM
I get it. Honest. I know they want it to be an exclusive club, but even 10 yrs ago, the current evolution was unimaginable.

Why the relatively quick and sudden change to how the B10 operates?

Cha-Ching Baby!

Why did apple get in the phone business? To make money. Why does Cadillac make an electric car? To make money. Why does phillip morris make smokeless tobacco? To make money. The Big 10 never cared about hockey. Now they have it.

Companies evolve. They don't do something one day, and the next day, their doing it. That's how it works.

The Big 10 is no longer a "conference". It's a business. BIG BUSINESS. They are going to keep trying to find more revenue. At some point, the idea of non-AAU schools will come up. I don't think that rule is written in stone. Again, ND is proof of that.  

As far as the presidents calling the shots, you're right.

But, here's where I'm going with this:

The schools REALLY LIKE making a lot of $. And eventually, when BTN says "Hey, we should change our football schedule to all spring games because we could make 500 billion dollars on a new TV deal", you can bet your ass the school presidents will sign off. So who is really calling the shots at that point? The Presidents, or the Network?

$. $. $.

Really Rutgers is the biggest example of that.  Rutgers had been lobbying for membership in the Big Ten for years...from way back when Penn State was admitted.

Priorities changed when the B10 decided to tackle the east coast.  So they picked off Maryland and decided to add Rutgers.  So who knows?  

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2014, 08:47:41 AM
I'm doing a poor job of explaining it apparently.    Basically, Rutgers already achieves the upside of what Uconn can mostly bring.  The incremental dollars were gained by Rutgers, there isn't much left for Uconn to deliver.  Does Uconn add a little value, sure....but at what cost and what dilution to the other schools?  If you only grow the pie a little bit, but everyone has to take another hit in the splits, that's a problem.  Rutgers adds New Jersey and New York for Big Ten Network dollars.  UConn's addition does not "re-add" New York, you get CT which is ok but pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

Could it happen, sure, but adding them is adding them for the sake of adding them as the incremental $$ are small.

Economists would call it "diminishing marginal returns."

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2014, 08:47:41 AM
I'm doing a poor job of explaining it apparently.    Basically, Rutgers already achieves the upside of what Uconn can mostly bring.  The incremental dollars were gained by Rutgers, there isn't much left for Uconn to deliver.  Does Uconn add a little value, sure....but at what cost and what dilution to the other schools?  If you only grow the pie a little bit, but everyone has to take another hit in the splits, that's a problem.  Rutgers adds New Jersey and New York for Big Ten Network dollars.  UConn's addition does not "re-add" New York, you get CT which is ok but pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

Could it happen, sure, but adding them is adding them for the sake of adding them as the incremental $$ are small.

So a school in New Brunswick gets you NYC but UConn can't get you New England or at least Providence and or Boston (along with the entire state of Connecticut). I'm also operating from a position that the B1G wants to challenge the ACC in the Northeast and you need another school farther north to do that with Cuse and BC in the ACC's house.

Look, they're going to 16. No one likes the 14 set up and its oddity with scheduling. So unless the Big 12 blows up (not unlikely), who are they going to be able to grab? I don't think Missouri's coming back after being embarrassed by the Big Ten.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 08, 2014, 09:00:54 AM
So a school in New Brunswick gets you NYC but UConn can't get you New England or at least Providence and or Boston (along with the entire state of Connecticut). I'm also operating from a position that the B1G wants to challenge the ACC in the Northeast and you need another school farther north to do that with Cuse and BC in the ACC's house.

Look, they're going to 16. No one likes the 14 set up and its oddity with scheduling. So unless the Big 12 blows up (not unlikely), who are they going to be able to grab? I don't think Missouri's coming back after being embarrassed by the Big Ten.

I think Missouri would still jump at B10 membership.  They are a poor fit in the SEC.   But I don't think this is happening unless they simply want to balance out with an east coast addition.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 08, 2014, 09:06:27 AM

I think Missouri would still jump at B10 membership.  They are a poor fit in the SEC.   But I don't think this is happening unless they simply want to balance out with an east coast addition.

Not according to many of their fans. There's a big divide between Missouri and Missuourah in the state. Hell, south of KC, St Louis and Columbia, Missouri is just Arkansas. Many of those fans, and oddly the ones closer to St. Louis were overjoyous with the SEC.

They could, definitely not an impossibility, but that state would be up in arms over this (and they've been pissed at Mizzou administration for years). I wouldnt want to be the AD/Prez when that happens.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 08, 2014, 09:10:32 AM
Not according to many of their fans. There's a big divide between Missouri and Missuourah in the state. Hell, south of KC, St Louis and Columbia, Missouri is just Arkansas. Many of those fans, and oddly the ones closer to St. Louis were overjoyous with the SEC.

They could, definitely not an impossibility, but that state would be up in arms over this (and they've been pissed at Mizzou administration for years). I wouldnt want to be the AD/Prez when that happens.

Fans don't vote.  It makes more geographical sense to be in the B1G than the SEC.  It isn't about culture or ego.  Its about cash.  The B1G has the most, and when they knock, you answer the door.  If Mizzou gets an invite, IMO KU goes with.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 08, 2014, 08:51:54 AM

Economists would call it "diminishing marginal returns."

Right, and at some point, adding another team won't really be "worth it". But, that tipping point probably hasn't been reached yet. (although, I don't know if UCONN is really a candidate).

We've seen in pro-sports leagues that the search for revenue is never-ending. NBA Jerseys with sleeves? C'mon. Sponsorships everywhere. Expansion franchises. New stadiums with more REV streams, etc.

The B10 Network isn't going to stop trying to make more money. The school Presidents can say whatever they want, but the Network is operating like a for-profit business, and they will attempt to maximize revenue generation.

If adding (insert school) will add significant revenue, then they will do it. That's it. We don't need to make it more complex than that.

If they thought Mars University would add a 1 billion in profit, they would buy Bo Ryan a space suit and send UW to play against little green men. 

$. $. $.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on May 08, 2014, 09:14:45 AM
Fans don't vote.  It makes more geographical sense to be in the B1G than the SEC.  It isn't about culture or ego.  Its about cash.  The B1G has the most, and when they knock, you answer the door.  If Mizzou gets an invite, IMO KU goes with.

Believe me. Missouri has bought into the SEC hard. There's a reason its the only conference without an exit fee or Grant of Rights.

the B10 will bring in whomever FOX tells them to

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 08, 2014, 09:17:43 AM
Right, and at some point, adding another team won't really be "worth it". But, that tipping point probably hasn't been reached yet. (although, I don't know if UCONN is really a candidate).

We've seen in pro-sports leagues that the search for revenue is never-ending. NBA Jerseys with sleeves? C'mon. Sponsorships everywhere. Expansion franchises. New stadiums with more REV streams, etc.

The B10 Network isn't going to stop trying to make more money. The school Presidents can say whatever they want, but the Network is operating like a for-profit business, and they will attempt to maximize revenue generation.

If adding (insert school) will add significant revenue, then they will do it. That's it. We don't need to make it more complex than that.

If they thought Mars University would add a 1 billion in profit, they would buy Bo Ryan a space suit and send UW to play against little green men. 

$. $. $.

No one is discounting money or possible expansion.  The question is whether UConn is the one and what do they add, especially in $$$.  Not much.  If BTN was solely calling the shots (I know you aren't saying that, but certainly you are giving them a big stick, too big in my view) then I can tell you right now what interests them in terms of expansion

Florida
Carolinas
Virginia
Missouri
Texas
Georgia

From those list of states, which schools are truly viable.  That's where you go hunting. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2014, 10:12:14 AM
No one is discounting money or possible expansion.  The question is whether UConn is the one and what do they add, especially in $$$.  Not much.  If BTN was solely calling the shots (I know you aren't saying that, but certainly you are giving them a big stick, too big in my view) then I can tell you right now what interests them in terms of expansion

Florida
Carolinas
Virginia
Missouri
Texas
Georgia

From those list of states, which schools are truly viable.  That's where you go hunting. 

I don't think anyone disagrees with you on your list at all, but as you've pointed out often they all have a GOR except Missouri & Georgia and would either really leave the SEC?  Isn't the SEC starting their own network so with new potential revenue growth there is no immediate incentive to leave.  They would need to see what happens down that road first before even considering the Big10? 

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 08, 2014, 10:19:38 AM
I don't think anyone disagrees with you on your list at all, but as you've pointed out often they all have a GOR except Missouri & Georgia and would either really leave the SEC?  Isn't the SEC starting their own network so with new potential revenue growth there is no immediate incentive to leave.  They would need to see what happens down that road first before even considering the Big10? 

Yup

SEC network is run by ESPN and will launch in August.  That's why I am not convinced you expand just to expand.  The schools worth expanding with are unlikely to leave.  If they are, they are much better options than Ucon for example. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2014, 08:47:41 AM
Sooooo, New Jersey= NYC (a big stretch), but UConn only = Connecticut? They're the biggest collegiate athletic brand in New England right now, so it cannot be 'peanuts'. Not to mention their proximity to NYC (it's called the Tri-State area and Rutgers certainly doesn't give it to you by yourself - no school does).

There's this weird, not supported in any factual way, bias against UConn because that's what we've been told to believe (I remember the same thing against Rutgers ever being added).

---

I'm doing a poor job of explaining it apparently.    Basically, Rutgers already achieves the upside of what Uconn can mostly bring.  The incremental dollars were gained by Rutgers, there isn't much left for Uconn to deliver.  Does Uconn add a little value, sure....but at what cost and what dilution to the other schools?  If you only grow the pie a little bit, but everyone has to take another hit in the splits, that's a problem.  Rutgers adds New Jersey and New York for Big Ten Network dollars.  UConn's addition does not "re-add" New York, you get CT which is ok but pretty small in the grand scheme of things.

Could it happen, sure, but adding them is adding them for the sake of adding them as the incremental $$ are small.

Chicos, I think the Aughnanure argument and mine is that Rutgers does not get you an increase in subscriber fees from New York (which the Big10 is banking on) with the reason being no one cares about Rutgers in New York.  They definitely get an increase from New Jersey subscribers which is significant in it's own right, but not New York.  UConn has a better chance at landing increased subscibers fee in New York than Rutgers.  And it may just take a Rutgers/UConn sandwich to get the BTN targeted subscriber fee out of New York.  On WFAN radio, there is rarely a caller on Rutgers anything unless they're bashing the Mike Rice situation or revolving door ADs, but UConn calls regularly come in even on football.

Unless the New York & New Jersey subscriber fee question falls under the exact same contract and the two states can't be divided in any deal between the Big10 & XYZ cable operator which may be what you're saying and we're missing?

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 08, 2014, 10:36:31 AM
Chicos, I think the Aughnanure argument and mine is that Rutgers does not get you an increase in subscriber fees from New York (which the Big10 is banking on) with the reason being no one cares about Rutgers in New York.  They definitely get an increase from New Jersey subscribers which is significant in it's own right, but not New York.  UConn has a better chance at landing increased subscibers fee in New York than Rutgers.  And it may just take a Rutgers/UConn sandwich to get the BTN targeted subscriber fee out of New York.  On WFAN radio, there is rarely a caller on Rutgers anything unless they're bashing the Mike Rice situation or revolving door ADs, but UConn calls regularly come in even on football.

Unless the New York & New Jersey subscriber fee question falls under the exact same contract and the two states can't be divided in any deal between the Big10 & XYZ cable operator which may be what you're saying and we're missing?

You'd be wrong.  Here in the Madison area, I get B1G without paying extra for it in a sports package.  This means I'm being charged for it.  I'm a subscriber without having to pay extra (or so it seems, of course that isn't true), so the B1G gets my money.  Sure this isn't the same for every location, but it isn't the opposite either.  I'm guessing that as popular the B1G is, they will lobby to be included on every package like ESPN. 

I just switched to Uverse in March and the BTN is included.  I previously had Optimum/Cablevision and in order to get the BTN you had to order a separate sports package that included stuff like the Tennis Network & out-of-market regional sports networks like MASN & FSN-area.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2014, 10:12:14 AM
No one is discounting money or possible expansion.  The question is whether UConn is the one and what do they add, especially in $$$.  Not much.  If BTN was solely calling the shots (I know you aren't saying that, but certainly you are giving them a big stick, too big in my view) then I can tell you right now what interests them in terms of expansion

Florida
Carolinas
Virginia
Missouri
Texas
Georgia

From those list of states, which schools are truly viable.  That's where you go hunting. 

Well, I don't think UCONN is going to get added right now.

BUT, yes, I think the Big10 would continue to target schools that they think could bring in significant revenue. That's it.

#1 It used to be about a school's profile and location. Tradition!!!

#2 Then it became about a school's profile and ability to make $. (Rutgers, Neb., Maryland, etc.)

#3 Soon enough, it's really just going to be about the $. Location doesn't mean anything. "profile" will be overlooked if the school adds significant revenue to the conference.

Business' evolve. They grow. They look for new markets. It's the only way to stay profitable.

Here is a wild idea:
B10 grabs a handful of ACC/SEC schools and creates a "new" B10 East (some combo of 12 eastern teams).

Then the B10 grabs all 12 schools from the Pac12, and calls it B10 West.

36 teams total in a new super conference.

Now they have enough content to open another channel or 2. In the fall, they would have football games starting at 11am, and going until midnight every Saturday.

In the winter, they would have live sports from 6pm-12am every night of the week. (6pm, 8pm, 10pm games)

Again, I'm not expecting this to happen, but if you look at what has happened in the past 10 years, I don't think anything is off of the table. This is BIG business. LOTS of money on the line.

Live content is king right now. If the B10 can maximize their content, and leverage their efficiency, they are going to push and grow, and make a LOT of money.

In all honestly, it's better than any professional sports league could ever be. The fan loyalty is already built in. The players play for "free", and you have year round content and variety. It's could be the most successful sports network ever created.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 07, 2014, 11:01:50 AM
UConn will be knocking on that door and ringing the doorbell all night.  They may have to play the "Fairfield County" Connecticut is in the New York City television market card.

With all due respect, Nutmeg, if/when the B1G expands it's looking to take a couple crown jewels from the ACC. Fact is, the Big Ten is the preeminent conference and they compel rather than merely inquire. Any school that says no to the B1G values tradition and rivalry more than dollars.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 08, 2014, 10:36:31 AM
Chicos, I think the Aughnanure argument and mine is that Rutgers does not get you an increase in subscriber fees from New York (which the Big10 is banking on) with the reason being no one cares about Rutgers in New York.  They definitely get an increase from New Jersey subscribers which is significant in it's own right, but not New York.  UConn has a better chance at landing increased subscibers fee in New York than Rutgers.  And it may just take a Rutgers/UConn sandwich to get the BTN targeted subscriber fee out of New York.  On WFAN radio, there is rarely a caller on Rutgers anything unless they're bashing the Mike Rice situation or revolving door ADs, but UConn calls regularly come in even on football.

Unless the New York & New Jersey subscriber fee question falls under the exact same contract and the two states can't be divided in any deal between the Big10 & XYZ cable operator which may be what you're saying and we're missing?

Others may be able to explain it better than I can but I remember something about the YES network. Somehow they and the B1G network were linked and by adding Rutgers and Maryland, they were now able to force their way onto every cable and dish receiver in the NYC and DC metro areas. It doesn't matter that no one cares about Rutgers, every New York will still get charged for BTN.

That is NOT true of UConn and Boston, IIRC.

Quote from: keefe on May 08, 2014, 12:17:13 PM
With all due respect, Nutmeg, if/when the B1G expands it's looking to take a couple crown jewels from the ACC. Fact is, the Big Ten is the preeminent conference and they compel rather than merely inquire. Any school that says no to the B1G values tradition and rivalry more than dollars.

Texas and Notre Dame weren't compelled.

Mizzou would be the only school to maybe defect from the SEC. The SEC network (launching in the fall) will rival the BTN for the amount of $$$ it rakes in. There will no longer be a monetary incentive to join the B1G. Mizzou might just because they could get the same amount of money plus restore traditional rivalries with Nebraska and Illinois. But I doubt it. I think the SEC Network has more potential to grow than the BTN. SEC will eventually make more than the B1G I believe.

Conference expansion will slow for now. There simply aren't quality schools that are available for poaching:

B1G/SEC: Too powerful to poach from
ACC: Grant of Rights until 2027
PAC 12: Geographically Insulated
Big 12: Grant of Rights until 2025
BEast: No football.

If you are going to poach, it has to be from the AAC, CUSA, MWC, etc. And there simply aren't that many quality programs left in those conferences. As was said before, expanding just to expand doesn't work. The added slices of pie aren't worth the extra mouths to feed.

If conferences do expand, it won't be the B1G. It will be a school who doesn't put as much value on AAU status. Because if AAU does matter, here is the list B1G gets to choose from:

University of Arizona (too far)
Buffalo
UC Berkeley (too far)
UCLA (too far)
Colorado (a stretch...but maybe possible)
Florida (won't leave the SEC)
Georgia Tech (GoR)
Iowa State(GoR/terrible media market)
Kansas (GoR)
Missouri (Maybe, but probably won't leave SEC)
North Carolina (GoR)
Oregon (too far)
Pittsburgh (GoR)
Texas (GoR)
Texas A&M (won't leave SEC)
Virginia (GoR)
Washington (too far)
Duke (GoR)
Rice
USC (too far)
Stanford (too far)
Tulane
Vanderbilt (won't leave SEC)

So to expand the B1G must either:
1. Drop the AAU requirement
2. Find a way to break Grant of Rights
3. Poach from an almost equally powerful SEC
4. Not care about geography...at all
5. Expand with a pair out of: Buffalo, Colorado, Missouri, Rice, or Tulane. All of which are either a stretch or suck at football.

Personally, I think the sit tight at 14 for now.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 08, 2014, 11:29:14 AM
Well, I don't think UCONN is going to get added right now.

BUT, yes, I think the Big10 would continue to target schools that they think could bring in significant revenue. That's it.

#1 It used to be about a school's profile and location. Tradition!!!

#2 Then it became about a school's profile and ability to make $. (Rutgers, Neb., Maryland, etc.)

#3 Soon enough, it's really just going to be about the $. Location doesn't mean anything. "profile" will be overlooked if the school adds significant revenue to the conference.

Business' evolve. They grow. They look for new markets. It's the only way to stay profitable.

Here is a wild idea:
B10 grabs a handful of ACC/SEC schools and creates a "new" B10 East (some combo of 12 eastern teams).

Then the B10 grabs all 12 schools from the Pac12, and calls it B10 West.

36 teams total in a new super conference.

Now they have enough content to open another channel or 2. In the fall, they would have football games starting at 11am, and going until midnight every Saturday.

In the winter, they would have live sports from 6pm-12am every night of the week. (6pm, 8pm, 10pm games)

Again, I'm not expecting this to happen, but if you look at what has happened in the past 10 years, I don't think anything is off of the table. This is BIG business. LOTS of money on the line.

Live content is king right now. If the B10 can maximize their content, and leverage their efficiency, they are going to push and grow, and make a LOT of money.

In all honestly, it's better than any professional sports league could ever be. The fan loyalty is already built in. The players play for "free", and you have year round content and variety. It's could be the most successful sports network ever created.

One thing to keep in mind....the B10 will not add unless the school appears on this list https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476 (https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476).

Nebraska and Minnesota are the only two that don't....Minnesota is grandfathered and Nebraska's admittance is predicated on application for AAU status.  I have it on good authority that Nebraska's lack of AAU status nearly scuttled the whole thing.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 08, 2014, 02:40:11 PM
Mizzou would be the only school to maybe defect from the SEC. The SEC network (launching in the fall) will rival the BTN for the amount of $$$ it rakes in. There will no longer be a monetary incentive to join the B1G. Mizzou might just because they could get the same amount of money plus restore traditional rivalries with Nebraska and Illinois. But I doubt it. I think the SEC Network has more potential to grow than the BTN. SEC will eventually make more than the B1G I believe.

Conference expansion will slow for now. There simply aren't quality schools that are available for poaching:

B1G/SEC: Too powerful to poach from
ACC: Grant of Rights until 2027
PAC 12: Geographically Insulated
Big 12: Grant of Rights until 2025
BEast: No football.

If you are going to poach, it has to be from the AAC, CUSA, MWC, etc. And there simply aren't that many quality programs left in those conferences. As was said before, expanding just to expand doesn't work. The added slices of pie aren't worth the extra mouths to feed.

If conferences do expand, it won't be the B1G. It will be a school who doesn't put as much value on AAU status. Because if AAU does matter, here is the list B1G gets to choose from:

University of Arizona (too far)
Buffalo
UC Berkeley (too far)
UCLA (too far)
Colorado (a stretch...but maybe possible)
Florida (won't leave the SEC)
Georgia Tech (GoR)
Iowa State(GoR/terrible media market)
Kansas (GoR)
Missouri (Maybe, but probably won't leave SEC)
North Carolina (GoR)
Oregon (too far)
Pittsburgh (GoR)
Texas (GoR)
Texas A&M (won't leave SEC)
Virginia (GoR)
Washington (too far)
Duke (GoR)
Rice
USC (too far)
Stanford (too far)
Tulane
Vanderbilt (won't leave SEC)

So to expand the B1G must either:
1. Drop the AAU requirement
2. Find a way to break Grant of Rights
3. Poach from an almost equally powerful SEC
4. Not care about geography...at all
5. Expand with a pair out of: Buffalo, Colorado, Missouri, Rice, or Tulane. All of which are either a stretch or suck at football.

Personally, I think the sit tight at 14 for now.

I agree with everything you wrote, but I do wonder if the Grant of Rights won't be broken from the inside.  I think SEC and B1G are the dominate players and even with a good ACC they'll be sitting 3rd in the pecking order.  There are going to some schools that will eventually hate the deal in the ACC when they compare to B1G and SEC

NM

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 08, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Others may be able to explain it better than I can but I remember something about the YES network. Somehow they and the B1G network were linked and by adding Rutgers and Maryland, they were now able to force their way onto every cable and dish receiver in the NYC and DC metro areas. It doesn't matter that no one cares about Rutgers, every New York will still get charged for BTN.

That is NOT true of UConn and Boston, IIRC.

In January FOX increased its stake to 80% ownership of YES, up from the 49% interest it bought in December 2012.  Is that the link between the two with FOX being a partner with the BTN?

Quote from: mu03eng on May 08, 2014, 02:41:45 PM
One thing to keep in mind....the B10 will not add unless the school appears on this list https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476 (https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476).

Nebraska and Minnesota are the only two that don't....Minnesota is grandfathered and Nebraska's admittance is predicated on application for AAU status.  I have it on good authority that Nebraska's lack of AAU status nearly scuttled the whole thing.

Ya, I just don't believe that. I mean, I know they SAY that, but I don't think that rule will hold forever.

10 years ago, they never would have added Maryland or Rutgers, and look where we are now?

If/when the money is good enough, the B10 will take a non-aau school.

It's just a matter of time and $.

Quote from: mu03eng on May 08, 2014, 02:41:45 PM
One thing to keep in mind....the B10 will not add unless the school appears on this list https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476 (https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476).

Nebraska and Minnesota are the only two that don't....Minnesota is grandfathered and Nebraska's admittance is predicated on application for AAU status.  I have it on good authority that Nebraska's lack of AAU status nearly scuttled the whole thing.

[/b]

Which is dumb.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 08, 2014, 10:36:31 AM
Chicos, I think the Aughnanure argument and mine is that Rutgers does not get you an increase in subscriber fees from New York (which the Big10 is banking on) with the reason being no one cares about Rutgers in New York.  They definitely get an increase from New Jersey subscribers which is significant in it's own right, but not New York.  UConn has a better chance at landing increased subscibers fee in New York than Rutgers.  And it may just take a Rutgers/UConn sandwich to get the BTN targeted subscriber fee out of New York.  On WFAN radio, there is rarely a caller on Rutgers anything unless they're bashing the Mike Rice situation or revolving door ADs, but UConn calls regularly come in even on football.

Unless the New York & New Jersey subscriber fee question falls under the exact same contract and the two states can't be divided in any deal between the Big10 & XYZ cable operator which may be what you're saying and we're missing?

It absolutely does in many instances because Big Ten Network is part of a base package, not a sports tier.  So the rate a MSO has to pay for that exact same subscriber in the exact same programming package goes up a lot because now New York is part of the core territory and no longer considered out of territory at the lower rate.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on May 08, 2014, 10:59:19 AM
I just switched to Uverse in March and the BTN is included.  I previously had Optimum/Cablevision and in order to get the BTN you had to order a separate sports package that included stuff like the Tennis Network & out-of-market regional sports networks like MASN & FSN-area.

Different deals out there, but typically if you live in a Big Ten market or territory, the network has to be in a base package and the rate is high.  Outside the Big Ten market areas, some providers can distribute in a sports pack as long as the BTN is still getting their $$$.  That's a way for a MSO not to overdistribute, but it usually costs them more on a per sub basis because the programmer is missing out on the ad revenue so they'll demand to be made whole.

Quote from: mu03eng on May 08, 2014, 02:41:45 PM
One thing to keep in mind....the B10 will not add unless the school appears on this list https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476 (https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=5476).

Nebraska and Minnesota are the only two that don't....Minnesota is grandfathered and Nebraska's admittance is predicated on application for AAU status.  I have it on good authority that Nebraska's lack of AAU status nearly scuttled the whole thing.

Minnesota is an AAU member.  Only Nebraska isn't, and they were when the accepted the invitation.  They were kicked out.  Two of schools that voted them out were Wisconsin and Michigan.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 08, 2014, 03:44:11 PM
[/b]

Which is dumb.

In your opinion, but the presidents of the Big Ten may not agree.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-06-13/sports/ct-spt-0614-aau-big-ten-expansion--20100613_1_aau-nebraska-chancellor-harvey-perlman-big-ten-members

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 08, 2014, 02:14:05 PM
Others may be able to explain it better than I can but I remember something about the YES network. Somehow they and the B1G network were linked and by adding Rutgers and Maryland, they were now able to force their way onto every cable and dish receiver in the NYC and DC metro areas. It doesn't matter that no one cares about Rutgers, every New York will still get charged for BTN.

That is NOT true of UConn and Boston, IIRC.

The leverage you are talking about is with FOX.  This is why big media companies buy a bunch of channels, because it provides them with great leverage.  Now they can go to NYC distributors when the YES contract is up and say if you want the Yankees, you must carry Big Ten Network, so on and so forth.  As an example, DISH doesn't carry YES, but they do carry Big Ten Network.  Fox can demand that in the next contract that DISH carries YES if they wish to keep Big Ten, or pay Fox handsomely for not carrying it (basically over pay for BTN).

Media companies drive the cost of  your television bill, and this is a big way that they do it.  They force distributors to carry channels they don't want to carry and in turn, they have to pass the cost down to customers. 

Like I said....


The Big Ten is "one big step closer to putting its flag in the New York/New Jersey television market," as the conference's cable network has "reached deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to broadly distribute its channel to the millions of homes in the market," according to Steve Politi of the Newark STAR-LEDGER. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Big Ten Network President Mark Silverman yesterday said that he is "optimistic that a deal will be reached with the third cable giant -- Comcast -- before the football season." Rutgers' first two Big Ten games -- its opener against Penn State and then against Michigan -- are "slated for primetime" on BTN. The net already is "available on FiOS and DirecTV" (NJ.com, 5/19). Politi writes this "might be the best news Rutgers has gotten in a while." Gone would be the "threat of a protracted dispute, which many TV experts believed to be inevitable, over cable fees that would have dampened the excitement over the Big Ten introduction and kept thousands of fans from being able to watch at home." Silverman would "not discuss the terms of the agreements with Time Warner or Cablevision, except to say that they would likely go into effect in late August." But yesterday he "made it clear that Rutgers and fellow newcomer Maryland would have an increased presence on the network during their inaugural season." Silverman: "It's our number one priority this year to integrate Rutgers and Maryland into the Big Ten Network and make high-quality programming for both schools" (Newark STAR-LEDGER, 5/20).

It would be interesting to know what the rates are.  The BTN might be willing to take a slightly lower rate in the NYC market than in some of the other traditional Big 10 markets in order to gain exposure, and avoid a public fight with the providers.

Quote from: Litehouse on May 20, 2014, 12:11:26 PM
It would be interesting to know what the rates are.  The BTN might be willing to take a slightly lower rate in the NYC market than in some of the other traditional Big 10 markets in order to gain exposure, and avoid a public fight with the providers.

It's been a long long long time since I've seen rates go down or lower in this industry.  For sports, I haven't seen it in 10+ years.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 20, 2014, 11:54:31 AM
Like I said....


The Big Ten is "one big step closer to putting its flag in the New York/New Jersey television market," as the conference's cable network has "reached deals with Time Warner Cable and Cablevision to broadly distribute its channel to the millions of homes in the market," according to Steve Politi of the Newark STAR-LEDGER. Terms of the deal were not disclosed. Big Ten Network President Mark Silverman yesterday said that he is "optimistic that a deal will be reached with the third cable giant -- Comcast -- before the football season." Rutgers' first two Big Ten games -- its opener against Penn State and then against Michigan -- are "slated for primetime" on BTN. The net already is "available on FiOS and DirecTV" (NJ.com, 5/19). Politi writes this "might be the best news Rutgers has gotten in a while." Gone would be the "threat of a protracted dispute, which many TV experts believed to be inevitable, over cable fees that would have dampened the excitement over the Big Ten introduction and kept thousands of fans from being able to watch at home." Silverman would "not discuss the terms of the agreements with Time Warner or Cablevision, except to say that they would likely go into effect in late August." But yesterday he "made it clear that Rutgers and fellow newcomer Maryland would have an increased presence on the network during their inaugural season." Silverman: "It's our number one priority this year to integrate Rutgers and Maryland into the Big Ten Network and make high-quality programming for both schools" (Newark STAR-LEDGER, 5/20).

The Big Ten did not really need to bring in Rutgers and Maryland to gain access  to the New York Metropolitan market. Gaining access is nothing more than a matter of price. There is an enormous embedded alumni base from the existing schools in the region. In fact having an increased presence of Rutgers and Maryland on the BTN network dilutes the overall quality of the product. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State Nebraska  Michigan State and Wisconsin are the schools that matter. The rest is filler.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 08, 2014, 02:40:11 PM
Mizzou would be the only school to maybe defect from the SEC. The SEC network (launching in the fall) will rival the BTN for the amount of $$$ it rakes in. There will no longer be a monetary incentive to join the B1G. Mizzou might just because they could get the same amount of money plus restore traditional rivalries with Nebraska and Illinois. But I doubt it. I think the SEC Network has more potential to grow than the BTN. SEC will eventually make more than the B1G I believe.

Conference expansion will slow for now. There simply aren't quality schools that are available for poaching:

B1G/SEC: Too powerful to poach from
ACC: Grant of Rights until 2027
PAC 12: Geographically Insulated
Big 12: Grant of Rights until 2025
BEast: No football.

If you are going to poach, it has to be from the AAC, CUSA, MWC, etc. And there simply aren't that many quality programs left in those conferences. As was said before, expanding just to expand doesn't work. The added slices of pie aren't worth the extra mouths to feed.

If conferences do expand, it won't be the B1G. It will be a school who doesn't put as much value on AAU status. Because if AAU does matter, here is the list B1G gets to choose from:

University of Arizona (too far)
Buffalo
UC Berkeley (too far)
UCLA (too far)
Colorado (a stretch...but maybe possible)
Florida (won't leave the SEC)
Georgia Tech (GoR)
Iowa State(GoR/terrible media market)
Kansas (GoR)
Missouri (Maybe, but probably won't leave SEC)
North Carolina (GoR)
Oregon (too far)
Pittsburgh (GoR)
Texas (GoR)
Texas A&M (won't leave SEC)
Virginia (GoR)
Washington (too far)
Duke (GoR)
Rice
USC (too far)
Stanford (too far)
Tulane
Vanderbilt (won't leave SEC)

So to expand the B1G must either:
1. Drop the AAU requirement
2. Find a way to break Grant of Rights
3. Poach from an almost equally powerful SEC
4. Not care about geography...at all
5. Expand with a pair out of: Buffalo, Colorado, Missouri, Rice, or Tulane. All of which are either a stretch or suck at football.

Personally, I think the sit tight at 14 for now.

I think Mizzou would give their left nut to join the B1G. They would be gone faster than you could say SE What.

Quote from: keefe on May 20, 2014, 10:14:59 PM
I think Mizzou would give their left nut to join the B1G. They would be gone faster than you could say SE What.

Trouble there is that the Big Ten adding Missouri doesn't exactly give you a lot. St. Louis already offers BTN due to its proximity to Illinois and Illini alumni in STL. The only "major" market you'd pick up by adding Mizzou is Kansas City, whose population you have to split three ways with KU and K-State fans.

Not to mention you're saddled with freaking Mizzou, who outside of Illinois, might be the most overrated athletic program in the entire country.

Mizzou football is a four-time Conference championship game loser, and hasn't won an outright conference championship on the field since winning the Big Eight in 1945, and hasn't won a conference title of any kind since 1969.

Mizzou Men's Basketball hasn't won a regular season conference title in 20 years, and has only been to the second weekend of the NCAA Tournament twice in the last 20 years.

But I will testify from personal experience, their fans have just as delusionally high an opinion of themselves as Badger fans. Living in St. Louis during the Chase Daniel era was the fucking worst.

Rutgers at least in theory gave you a foothold in New York. Missouri, at best, gives you a Rutgers-like record of success, and one-third of Kansas City.

Quote from: Texas Western on May 20, 2014, 10:06:59 PM
The Big Ten did not really need to bring in Rutgers and Maryland to gain access  to the New York Metropolitan market. Gaining access is nothing more than a matter of price. There is an enormous embedded alumni base from the existing schools in the region. In fact having an increased presence of Rutgers and Maryland on the BTN network dilutes the overall quality of the product. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State Nebraska  Michigan State and Wisconsin are the schools that matter. The rest is filler.

I think you are completely misunderstanding how the BTN works and the MFNs that in place.

Quite frankly, yes, they did need to bring them in to get access to New York, etc....AT THE RATES THEY WANTED.  That's the key, and a HUGE one at that.

Quote from: Texas Western on May 20, 2014, 10:06:59 PM
The Big Ten did not really need to bring in Rutgers and Maryland to gain access  to the New York Metropolitan market. Gaining access is nothing more than a matter of price. There is an enormous embedded alumni base from the existing schools in the region. In fact having an increased presence of Rutgers and Maryland on the BTN network dilutes the overall quality of the product. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State Nebraska  Michigan State and Wisconsin are the schools that matter. The rest is filler.

It's not just about New York, it's about the whole eastern seaboard.  This article estimates that the B10 just made $48M annually on this deal alone, and could net about $200M when all is said and done.  You don't accomplish that without a significant presence on the east coast.  Think about that... considering that the B10 owns half of BTN, that's over $7M per school annually just in BTN cable rights fees on the east coast.

And this figure does not include the new television rights agreements that will be negotiated in 2016.


http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-network-hits-the-nyc-jackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

Let's do a little quick "back of the napkin math" on this massive victory for BTN.  At last check, the channel charges a $1.00 fee per subscriber per month for those customers within the conference footprint, which NY/NJ now falls into thanks to Rutgers.  Much like the "Is Andy Murray British or Scottish debate," New Jersey gets to be a part of the NYC metropolitan area seemingly only when it's convenient to someone looking to make money.

Cablevision has 3.1 million subscribers in the area.  Time Warner has a little more than 2.6 million subscribers in New York state, many of them concentrated in the city.  New Jersey has a fraction of that at just over 40,000.  Let's just be extra conservative and put the total number of subscribers that will now get BTN at 4 million.

Just from this deal alone, the Big Ten just pocketed an extra $48 million per year.

Forty.  Eight.  Million.  Dollars.  Per.  Year.

And that's just from one carriage agreement in New York City.  Let's not forget Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and the rest of the I-95 corridor that BTN will look to expand into.  Back in 2012, Sports Illustrated prophetically estimated that the Big Ten could make $200 million annually from television money on the east coast.  And that number may now be on the low end of the spectrum."

Quote from: Texas Western on May 20, 2014, 10:06:59 PM
The Big Ten did not really need to bring in Rutgers and Maryland to gain access  to the New York Metropolitan market. Gaining access is nothing more than a matter of price. There is an enormous embedded alumni base from the existing schools in the region. In fact having an increased presence of Rutgers and Maryland on the BTN network dilutes the overall quality of the product. Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State Nebraska  Michigan State and Wisconsin are the schools that matter. The rest is filler.

TW:

Read what CBB and Slurpery are saying carefully.

The BTN has completely changed the economics of college sports.  Everyone needs a lobotomy so they can forget everything about college sports economics before June 21, 2006 (the day the BTN started).  This is why the SEC ran to ESPN to create the SEC network.  

Here are the six most important issues with college sports and picking the schools in your conference ...

1. TV market and carriage access
2. TV market and carriage access
3. TV market and carriage access
4. TV market and carriage access
5. Everything else
6. If that schools football team has a winning program or history

Quote from: Heisenberg on May 21, 2014, 09:06:12 AM
TW:

Read what CBB and Slurpery are saying carefully.

The BTN has completely changed the economics of college sports.  Everyone needs a lobotomy so they can forget everything about college sports economics before June 21, 2006 (the day the BTN started).  This is why the SEC ran to ESPN to create the SEC network.  

Here are the six most important issues with college sports and picking the schools in your conference ...

1. TV market and carriage access
2. TV market and carriage access
3. TV market and carriage access
4. TV market and carriage access
5. Everything else
6. If that schools football team has a winning program or history

7. The school's academic standing
8. The school's basketball tradition

And just to repeat it again, "conferences" aren't "conferences" anymore.

They are content creators/networks. This is about the flatscreen in everybody's livingroom, guys. It's about eyeballs and $. That's it.

Don't be fooled into believing stuff said or done in the past makes a difference. It doesn't.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 21, 2014, 09:32:16 AM
7. The school's academic standing
8. The school's basketball tradition

And just to repeat it again, "conferences" aren't "conferences" anymore.

They are content creators/networks. This is about the flatscreen in everybody's livingroom, guys. It's about eyeballs and $. That's it.

Don't be fooled into believing stuff said or done in the past makes a difference. It doesn't.

See the bolded part.  If you're unsure on how little a good basketball program matters in the new world order, see Uconn.  Despite basketball success (I believe they are a blood-blood program) the ACC and B1G are not interested.  The reason is Uconn fails on numbers 1 through 4 above (TV market and carriage access).

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 21, 2014, 07:59:53 AM

It's not just about New York, it's about the whole eastern seaboard.  This article estimates that the B10 just made $48M annually on this deal alone, and could net about $200M when all is said and done.  You don't accomplish that without a significant presence on the east coast.  Think about that... considering that the B10 owns half of BTN, that's over $7M per school annually just in BTN cable rights fees on the east coast.

And this figure does not include the new television rights agreements that will be negotiated in 2016.


http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-network-hits-the-nyc-jackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

Let's do a little quick "back of the napkin math" on this massive victory for BTN.  At last check, the channel charges a $1.00 fee per subscriber per month for those customers within the conference footprint, which NY/NJ now falls into thanks to Rutgers.  Much like the "Is Andy Murray British or Scottish debate," New Jersey gets to be a part of the NYC metropolitan area seemingly only when it's convenient to someone looking to make money.

Cablevision has 3.1 million subscribers in the area.  Time Warner has a little more than 2.6 million subscribers in New York state, many of them concentrated in the city.  New Jersey has a fraction of that at just over 40,000.  Let's just be extra conservative and put the total number of subscribers that will now get BTN at 4 million.

Just from this deal alone, the Big Ten just pocketed an extra $48 million per year.

Forty.  Eight.  Million.  Dollars.  Per.  Year.

And that's just from one carriage agreement in New York City.  Let's not forget Baltimore, Philadelphia, Washington DC, and the rest of the I-95 corridor that BTN will look to expand into.  Back in 2012, Sports Illustrated prophetically estimated that the Big Ten could make $200 million annually from television money on the east coast.  And that number may now be on the low end of the spectrum."

I think the carriage agreements have less to do with Rutgers and more to do with content provider carrier pricing negotiations. For example where I live we have a very high end( probably the highest)demographic for golf and Cablevison refused to carry the Golf Channel until they had the deal they wanted. Same with BTN it is all about the deal. People could care less about Rutgers football in NY NJ.

Quote from: Heisenberg on May 21, 2014, 09:50:54 AM
See the bolded part.  If you're unsure on how little a good basketball program matters in the new world order, see Uconn.  Despite basketball success (I believe they are a blood-blood program) the ACC and B1G are not interested.  The reason is Uconn fails on numbers 1 through 4 above (TV market and carriage access).

Agreed.

I'm just listing it to illustrate how far down the list it actually is.

Now, there is a weird/outside chance that as the B10 network continues to try to find revenue, that it would absorb limited members to generate more winter content. In that case, hoops/hockey would matter.

However, that scenario is probably 10-15 years away from even being a pipe dream. The B10 is going to grab all of the large revenue generators (football schools with lots of TV viewership), and then work down the list from there.

Basketball/hockey will come into play after all of the football $ and content has been squeezed to the absolute max.

Quote from: Texas Western on May 21, 2014, 10:13:11 AM
I think the carriage agreements have less to do with Rutgers and more to do with content provider carrier pricing negotiations. For example where I live we have a very high end( probably the highest)demographic for golf and Cablevison refused to carry the Golf Channel until they had the deal they wanted. Same with BTN it is all about the deal. People could care less about Rutgers football in NY NJ.

Rutgers is one of the highest enrollment schools in the country, and certainly on the east coast (ditto Maryland).  Their first two football games this year are Penn State and Michigan ... only available on the BTN.

You don't think the pressure those Rutgers alum (many of which live in the Trio-state area) putting on local operators matters?  It matters a lot!

And, as Chicos said, it is about getting on basic cable without cutting your fee.

Quote from: Heisenberg on May 21, 2014, 09:06:12 AM
TW:

Read what CBB and Slurpery are saying carefully.

The BTN has completely changed the economics of college sports.  Everyone needs a lobotomy so they can forget everything about college sports economics before June 21, 2006 (the day the BTN started).  This is why the SEC ran to ESPN to create the SEC network.  

Here are the six most important issues with college sports and picking the schools in your conference ...

1. TV market and carriage access
2. TV market and carriage access
3. TV market and carriage access
4. TV market and carriage access
5. Everything else
6. If that schools football team has a winning program or history

So tell me how TCU and Nebraska fit into this...

Quote from: Texas Western on May 21, 2014, 10:13:11 AM
I think the carriage agreements have less to do with Rutgers and more to do with content provider carrier pricing negotiations. For example where I live we have a very high end( probably the highest)demographic for golf and Cablevison refused to carry the Golf Channel until they had the deal they wanted. Same with BTN it is all about the deal. People could care less about Rutgers football in NY NJ.

Look, you can't be a east coast conference without schools on the east coast.  The BTN can't make as compelling an argument to the providers on that coast without having a presence there.  Penn State alums that I know always had a tough time in their relationship with the B10.  They felt that they were an eastern school in a midwestern conference.  That isn't the case any longer.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 21, 2014, 10:52:22 AM
So tell me how TCU and Nebraska fit into this...

Nebraska was basically a free agent that is a traditional college football powerhouse that draws eyeballs to the sets. 

But don't ask me about TCU.  The B12 is so UTexas-dependent, and so frightened of a departure to a conference like the B10, that their thought processes are a little warped.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 21, 2014, 10:52:22 AM
So tell me how TCU and Nebraska fit into this...

Nebraska is just like most other Big10 schools.

Nobody is after the Madison television market, but statewide, they draw very well, delivering Milwaukee/GB/Madison/etc.

Nebraska doesn't deliver a major market per se, but they deliver major eyeballs because they dominate a state/region, and have a good national rep.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 21, 2014, 09:32:16 AM
7. The school's academic standing
8. The school's basketball tradition

And just to repeat it again, "conferences" aren't "conferences" anymore.

They are content creators/networks. This is about the flatscreen in everybody's livingroom, guys. It's about eyeballs and $. That's it.

Don't be fooled into believing stuff said or done in the past makes a difference. It doesn't.

Respectfully Guns, you're thinking about it wrong when it comes to the Big Ten.

Look, the easy answer is you put #7 up front and still accomplish #1.   This isn't hard guys.  The Big Ten can have it both ways, and they do.  They pick a school that meets the standards academically, but drives carriage based on territorial footprint.  Do we really think the Big Ten needed Rutgers football or sports?  Please.

I also don't know why this entire concept of carriage and market has been so difficult for some here (not you Guns).  It's not about whether Rutgers is popular in New York, but some people are absolutely fixated that this is somehow important.  It has very little to do with it.  It could be Sister Mary of NYC and the outcome is still the same.  I felt like I was banging my head against the wall with Aughenere and a few others.

THINK TERRITORIES and GEOGRAPHIC LINKAGE, not popularity necessarily of a specific school to a specific market, or how good they are in football, etc.  That's now what is driving this.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 21, 2014, 10:24:31 AM
Agreed.

I'm just listing it to illustrate how far down the list it actually is.

Now, there is a weird/outside chance that as the B10 network continues to try to find revenue, that it would absorb limited members to generate more winter content. In that case, hoops/hockey would matter.

However, that scenario is probably 10-15 years away from even being a pipe dream. The B10 is going to grab all of the large revenue generators (football schools with lots of TV viewership), and then work down the list from there.

Basketball/hockey will come into play after all of the football $ and content has been squeezed to the absolute max.

It doesn't have to be at all, and thus far it is not how the Big Ten has acted nor is it how they are looking at the immediate future.  Basketball and hockey don't do anything.  It is 99% window dressing.

Quote from: Texas Western on May 21, 2014, 10:13:11 AM
I think the carriage agreements have less to do with Rutgers and more to do with content provider carrier pricing negotiations. For example where I live we have a very high end( probably the highest)demographic for golf and Cablevison refused to carry the Golf Channel until they had the deal they wanted. Same with BTN it is all about the deal. People could care less about Rutgers football in NY NJ.

Partially right, but you are ignoring the realities of what they control. Fox owns the BTN.....now think about what that means in terms of all the other channels Fox owns.  You are right that most people could care less about Rutgers football, but many people on Cablevision care a lot about FOX News, FX, FXX, FMC, etc, etc.  The woven strands on all this stuff is where it gets complicated.  Then on the sports side you also have a bunch of Cablevision subs that are PSU grads, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.  To keep allowing those customers to receive BTN in this new territory now represented by a Big Ten school (Rutgers), even if it is a school no one cares about, just raised the price considerably because the territory is now "IN MARKET", not out of market. 

This is fundamental in understanding how it works.   

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 21, 2014, 10:52:22 AM
So tell me how TCU and Nebraska fit into this...

TCU?

Nebraska fit in because it was an AAU school and they have a national football brand.  There are exceptions to every rule, but the territory expansion with Nebraska expands the footprint for BTN and gives them a highly loyal fan base.  For Rutgers, totally different...2nd rate sports school but the linkage is all about the territory and "in market" rates that are forced on to providers if they wish to carry the channel.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2014, 12:36:49 PM
It doesn't have to be at all, and thus far it is not how the Big Ten has acted nor is it how they are looking at the immediate future.  Basketball and hockey don't do anything.  It is 99% window dressing.

Well except for that whole Johns Hopkins lacrosse thing.

I mean I agree with you that basketball or hockey only members isn't likely, and doubtful that they would consider it anytime soon, but lets not act like they would *never* consider such a step.  They already took one.

I mean, is it *that* inconceivable that they would consider taking BC, BU, Notre Dame and North Dakota as hockey affilitates? 

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 21, 2014, 12:43:41 PM

Well except for that whole Johns Hopkins lacrosse thing.

I mean I agree with you that basketball or hockey only members isn't likely, and doubtful that they would consider it anytime soon, but lets not act like they would *never* consider such a step.  They already took one.

I mean, is it *that* inconceivable that they would consider taking BC, BU, Notre Dame and North Dakota as hockey affilitates? 

Could they, sure.  Question is, what would those schools get out of it?  My point is that those sports drive <1% of the television value.  Sure, it's filler for the BTN, but if I'm the BTN I'm not interested in writing a big check for that content because I don't have to.  If I'm a Big Ten school, I'm not interested in diluting my shares because of some hockey content.  Basketball, more of an argument, but it is still absolute peanuts.

Remember, the checks are coming from the network to the conference.  The valuation of these properties will be determined by the network as well, and they are not going to be in any hurry to add costs for which they have to try and preserve margins by selling what is arguably valueless content to someone that has to carry it.  Now, they will try and they can "mask" it by saying the football portion is driving the costs which will work to some extent, but gets back to shares dilution and why would the schools want to reward them.  Think Big East and the basketball only school splits vs football schools.  Totally different animal.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2014, 12:36:49 PM
It doesn't have to be at all, and thus far it is not how the Big Ten has acted nor is it how they are looking at the immediate future.  Basketball and hockey don't do anything.  It is 99% window dressing.

Think bigger picture. You're too close, and/or too hung up on things they say.

10 years ago, they would have said "We are not an East Coast Conference". Look at where they are now. What they "say" doesn't mean anything.

Think 15 years from now. Think 20 years from now.

Not all content is created equal (in terms of viewership or $).

However, that doesn't mean (insert network) would turn down (insert programing) that can be profitable.

If BTN already owns all of the infrastructure, it's not that hard to make college hoops and hockey programming profitable. And you know what happens when 2 nights per week of hoops makes money? You want to make it 3 or 4 nights of hoops. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2014, 12:56:21 PM
Could they, sure.  Question is, what would those schools get out of it?  My point is that those sports drive <1% of the television value.  Sure, it's filler for the BTN, but if I'm the BTN I'm not interested in writing a big check for that content because I don't have to.  If I'm a Big Ten school, I'm not interested in diluting my shares because of some hockey content.  Basketball, more of an argument, but it is still absolute peanuts.

OK gotcha.  That makes sense.

And as I was thinking about it, Hopkins I think was added because it gave the conference the minimum six schools needed to have its own conference.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2014, 12:56:21 PM
Could they, sure.  Question is, what would those schools get out of it?  My point is that those sports drive <1% of the television value.  Sure, it's filler for the BTN, but if I'm the BTN I'm not interested in writing a big check for that content because I don't have to.  If I'm a Big Ten school, I'm not interested in diluting my shares because of some hockey content.  Basketball, more of an argument, but it is still absolute peanuts.

Remember, the checks are coming from the network to the conference.  The valuation of these properties will be determined by the network as well, and they are not going to be in any hurry to add costs for which they have to try and preserve margins by selling what is arguably valueless content to someone that has to carry it.  Now, they will try and they can "mask" it by saying the football portion is driving the costs which will work to some extent, but gets back to shares dilution and why would the schools want to reward them.  Think Big East and the basketball only school splits vs football schools.  Totally different animal.

You're right... for now.

But, the search for revenue isn't going to stop. The search to produce and sell content isn't going to stop.

It might not be today, tomorrow or in 2020. But, I don't think the B10 will look anything like it does today in 2030. It's going to continue to evolve in way we can't imagine.

BUT, the one constant will be profitability and $. That's it. That's what I'm getting at. $.

Reputation and exclusivity are important, right up until the network says: "We can make Xmillion more per year if we add 4 hockey only schools and 4 basketball only schools"

I'm aware that "Xmillion" will be peanuts compared to what the football schools make, but that doesn't mean they won't want it.

Quote from: Aughnanure on May 21, 2014, 10:52:22 AM
So tell me how TCU and Nebraska fit into this...

TCU in theory delivers a new market. UT is in Austin and TCU is in the Dallas Fort Worth area. In reality, UT/Baylor/Texas Tech already bring them the Dallas market.

TCU was a desperation add by the B12 back at the beginning of realignment. Remember that the B12 had shrunk to 8 members. TAMU, Mizzou, Nebraska, and Colorado had all bolted. There was talks of Texas/Oklahoma to the B10, Kansas/Iowa State to the Big East. Baylor falling to CUSA. These things obviously never happened. Partially because the conference managed to add West Virginia and TCU. Gave programs hope that the B12 could survive.

Now that the B12 has reaffirmed its existence, their next expansion will be into new markets. They won't go after a Houston, but they will probably take a Cincinnati.

If only the B12 had fallen apart. There were enough quality teams in there that the realignment monster could have been satisfied. The Big East wouldn't have had to split.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 21, 2014, 12:43:41 PM

Well except for that whole Johns Hopkins lacrosse thing.

I mean I agree with you that basketball or hockey only members isn't likely, and doubtful that they would consider it anytime soon, but lets not act like they would *never* consider such a step.  They already took one.

I mean, is it *that* inconceivable that they would consider taking BC, BU, Notre Dame and North Dakota as hockey affilitates? 

UConn has a hockey team.  Playing in Hockey East next season.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 21, 2014, 01:06:22 PM
Think bigger picture. You're too close, and/or too hung up on things they say.

10 years ago, they would have said "We are not an East Coast Conference". Look at where they are now. What they "say" doesn't mean anything.

Think 15 years from now. Think 20 years from now.

Not all content is created equal (in terms of viewership or $).

However, that doesn't mean (insert network) would turn down (insert programing) that can be profitable.

If BTN already owns all of the infrastructure, it's not that hard to make college hoops and hockey programming profitable. And you know what happens when 2 nights per week of hoops makes money? You want to make it 3 or 4 nights of hoops. 

You are right, what they say doesn't mean anything.  It is what they DO that matters.  What they have DONE is follow a pattern tried and true for them.  In my dealings with them, the same focus in the future is there.  If they expand, which is up for grabs, it will most likely be with schools that fit a template for them.  They can get the $$ and the territory without having to sacrifice elsewhere on other standards which they also hold dear.

If they were going to expand purely because of school X, they could have done that many times over thus far, but they haven't....for a reason.  Even in the latest round.  They could have gone after Syracuse...they didn't.  Would have still given them the same NY carriage deal.  There a reasons.  Just one example.   Just as they aren't going to try and get the state of Kentucky just to have the state of Kentucky, because UK and UL don't cut it academically.  It's a border state for Ohio and Indiana, makes sense geographically, but it won't happen.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2014, 04:41:40 PM
You are right, what they say doesn't mean anything.  It is what they DO that matters.  What they have DONE is follow a pattern tried and true for them.  In my dealings with them, the same focus in the future is there.  If they expand, which is up for grabs, it will most likely be with schools that fit a template for them.  They can get the $$ and the territory without having to sacrifice elsewhere on other standards which they also hold dear.

If they were going to expand purely because of school X, they could have done that many times over thus far, but they haven't....for a reason.  Even in the latest round.  They could have gone after Syracuse...they didn't.  Would have still given them the same NY carriage deal.  There a reasons.  Just one example.   Just as they aren't going to try and get the state of Kentucky just to have the state of Kentucky, because UK and UL don't cut it academically.  It's a border state for Ohio and Indiana, makes sense geographically, but it won't happen.

Fair points, I guess my assumption is that they are now feeding the monster, and it's not going to stop. It might slow down for a while, but I don't think it's going to stop.

They may not want Syracuse or the state of Kentucky right now (I believe that), but my belief is that they will eventually look for more revenue sources in the future.

I don't know how that will play out, but I have a feeling some/most of the rationale the B10 currently uses will eventually get modified, and they will continue to expand their reach/brand/profit centers.

Oh, and they are not following ANY sort of tried and true methodology. The tried and true pattern was 10 teams. That's how the conference was for a loooooooonnnnnggggggg time. Everything they are doing now should be considered "new".

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2014, 12:40:31 PM
Partially right, but you are ignoring the realities of what they control. Fox owns the BTN.....now think about what that means in terms of all the other channels Fox owns.  You are right that most people could care less about Rutgers football, but many people on Cablevision care a lot about FOX News, FX, FXX, FMC, etc, etc.  The woven strands on all this stuff is where it gets complicated.  Then on the sports side you also have a bunch of Cablevision subs that are PSU grads, Michigan, Wisconsin, etc.  To keep allowing those customers to receive BTN in this new territory now represented by a Big Ten school (Rutgers), even if it is a school no one cares about, just raised the price considerably because the territory is now "IN MARKET", not out of market. 

This is fundamental in understanding how it works.   

Fox would surely like to get all their channels on the various systems but they don't. Take for example Fox Business. There is only so much room and there are constant debates about the pricing between content providers and distributors. In our market we frequently have disputes that keep the Yankees and other prime product off the market. I have been in business with Media companies my whole career and at the end of the day it is just a dollar ans sense thing.

BTN can get on a basic cable lineup if they price it low enough.Having Rutgers and Maryland in theory gives new markets.  However lets look at reality. When Rutgers was in the Big East with a whole bunch of other local entities, they could barely get a bid. Basically I think what happened here is Rutgers and Maryland were very shrewd in making their case to the insular guys in Chicago who have become increasingly outflanked by the SEC, PAC 12 and Now ACC. I actually think it was more of a desperation move by the Big Ten than a well thought out thing. I am sure BTN is happy to have more content and maybe someday they will negotiate their way on to the more mainstream cable lineups. In the meantime the Big Ten  has taken what was already a declining product and made it worse. How does a late November game between Indiana and Maryland sound on the sex appeal meter.

All that said I think they will add a 15th and 16th team It will come down to the academic athletic fit. The resolution of the Maryland litigation will be a big factor in which direction they go.

Quote from: Texas Western on May 21, 2014, 08:19:21 PM
BTN can get on a basic cable lineup if they price it low enough.Having Rutgers and Maryland in theory gives new markets.  However lets look at reality. When Rutgers was in the Big East with a whole bunch of other local entities, they could barely get a bid. Basically I think what happened here is Rutgers and Maryland were very shrewd in making their case to the insular guys in Chicago who have become increasingly outflanked by the SEC, PAC 12 and Now ACC. I actually think it was more of a desperation move by the Big Ten than a well thought out thing. I am sure BTN is happy to have more content and maybe someday they will negotiate their way on to the more mainstream cable lineups. In the meantime the Big Ten  has taken what was already a declining product and made it worse. How does a late November game between Indiana and Maryland sound on the sex appeal meter.

I don't think you get what the B10 is doing here.  I have mentioned this before, but the B10's rights deal with ESPN is ending after 2016.  This is the last major conference deal that is expiring this decade.  The conference has methodically expanded into the most populous area of the country, one that has no major college sports presence and has been written off as only interested in pro sports.  The now have teams with presence in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington DC.

There are estimates that their next deal is going to up their total television revenue per school in excess of $40M annually.  They could double every other conference's take per school, including the SEC's $23M.  They can't do this without expanding to the east.

Yeah the SEC is out-performing the B10 on the football field.  But the B10 has spme of the largest and richest universities located in two of the most populous parts of the country.  And they really have played this about as well as they conceivably could have.

Quote from: Texas Western on May 21, 2014, 08:19:21 PM
Fox would surely like to get all their channels on the various systems but they don't. Take for example Fox Business. There is only so much room and there are constant debates about the pricing between content providers and distributors. In our market we frequently have disputes that keep the Yankees and other prime product off the market. I have been in business with Media companies my whole career and at the end of the day it is just a dollar ans sense thing.

BTN can get on a basic cable lineup if they price it low enough.Having Rutgers and Maryland in theory gives new markets.  However lets look at reality. When Rutgers was in the Big East with a whole bunch of other local entities, they could barely get a bid. Basically I think what happened here is Rutgers and Maryland were very shrewd in making their case to the insular guys in Chicago who have become increasingly outflanked by the SEC, PAC 12 and Now ACC. I actually think it was more of a desperation move by the Big Ten than a well thought out thing. I am sure BTN is happy to have more content and maybe someday they will negotiate their way on to the more mainstream cable lineups. In the meantime the Big Ten  has taken what was already a declining product and made it worse. How does a late November game between Indiana and Maryland sound on the sex appeal meter.

All that said I think they will add a 15th and 16th team It will come down to the academic athletic fit. The resolution of the Maryland litigation will be a big factor in which direction they go.

If you have been around this a long time, then you know about MFNs and you know they can't just lower the price to get on a distributor without it cascading down to every other deal.  This is exactly the reason why Pac 12 Network is not on DIRECTV and others, the same reason why CSN Houston isn't, etc.  So while dollars and cents always drives the bargain, it isn't that simple any more.  The ability to get an independent deal isn't there as the market is set early on by the first to grab it.  Then all others fall in line, or to get the others to fall in line they have to reset the original deal. 

I don't agree with your take that they have been outflanked, but that's just my personal bias.  You are right, that IU Maryland matchup isn't very sexy.  Then again, neither are a bunch of the SEC or ACC matchups that now exist either.  Or the Big 12.  That's just the nature of expansion.  At the end of the day, the Big Ten got New York, New Jersey and all that goes with it, the nation's capital and surrounding state territories.  Athletically, they didn't make the conference better.  Economically, they made it a lot better.  That's part of my point.  If the desire was to add better schools to make better matchups, other than that  IU vs Maryland example you gave...they could do that in a heartbeat.  They didn't, because they have other standards and they don't need to with the way the money works. 

And yes, if the Maryland case is ruled in such a way that gives schools the right to leave and somehow kills the current media rights provisions for the conferences, it changes things.  I would expect Big Ten to grab North Carolina and Virginia in that case.  Or UNC and someone else (not NC State or Duke).

I don't think the Maryland litigation can kill the grant of rights. I think the ACC is locked down for now. But I could be wrong.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 22, 2014, 12:14:03 AM
I don't think the Maryland litigation can kill the grant of rights. I think the ACC is locked down for now. But I could be wrong.

Many attorneys agree with you, but as you know in this country all it takes is the will of one jurist to say differently.

The B10 has about as  much interest in Connecticut as the Big East has in the University of Detroit. Not on the radar.

There are four schools on the B10 radar, with a mix of academic chops, athletic spending, and media markets. And it's in accident their efforts east are a frontal assault on the ACC.

In order:

1. North Carolina (Raleigh-Durham, Greeensboro, Charlotte)
2. Georgia Tech (Atlanta)
3. Virginia
4. Duke (only as a quid pro quo to secure UNC)

But don't count out the other side to this equation, the Pac 8/10/12.  The Pac is a trusted partner with the B10 in fotball and it does the B10 no good to see the Pac retreat while B10 hegemony rolls on. The preemptory move is two more for the Pac12, and that's Texas and Oklahoma, which sends the signal that no major conference is safe. Because in the end , it's not the big 5 conferences, it's really the big 3.

It will be politically very difficult for North Carolina to leave NC State behind...for Oklahoma to leave Oklahoma State behind...and for Texas to leave Texas Tech behind.  A&M was able to do it because their alumni controlled the state government at the time.  But these types of moves are difficult when you have two state universities in the same conference.

Quote from: DFW HOYA on May 23, 2014, 06:38:26 AM
The B10 has about as  much interest in Connecticut as the Big East has in the University of Detroit. Not on the radar.

There are four schools on the B10 radar, with a mix of academic chops, athletic spending, and media markets. And it's in accident their efforts east are a frontal assault on the ACC.

In order:

1. North Carolina (Raleigh-Durham, Greeensboro, Charlotte)
2. Georgia Tech (Atlanta)
3. Virginia
4. Duke (only as a quid pro quo to secure UNC)

But don't count out the other side to this equation, the Pac 8/10/12.  The Pac is a trusted partner with the B10 in fotball and it does the B10 no good to see the Pac retreat while B10 hegemony rolls on. The preemptory move is two more for the Pac12, and that's Texas and Oklahoma, which sends the signal that no major conference is safe. Because in the end , it's not the big 5 conferences, it's really the big 3.

Yup, at least on 3 of them....that's been the list I have been told about for some time.  KU is another. 

Notice anything about the 4 listed plus KU?

AAU
AAU
AAU
AAU
AAU

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 23, 2014, 08:50:02 AM
It will be politically very difficult for North Carolina to leave NC State behind...for Oklahoma to leave Oklahoma State behind...and for Texas to leave Texas Tech behind.  A&M was able to do it because their alumni controlled the state government at the time.  But these types of moves are difficult when you have two state universities in the same conference.

Texas gubernatorial candidates:
Wendy Davis (D): Tarrant County College/TCU
Greg Abbott (R): UT-Austin

Yes, current governor Rick Perry went to A&M, but the rest of the state government could hardly be said to be controlled by A&M alumni (unless you're referring to it more in a campaign finance perspective which is arguably a much different inquiry).  I looked up the roster of the 31 Texas state senators (seemed easier than the 150 state reps), and it listed the following alma maters. 7 of the 30 incumbents have some sort of UT connection, either through undergrad, or graduate school (one seat is open following a resignation, with a special election pending).


Texas Statehouse (current makeup)

State Senate alma maters:
UT-Austin
George Mason
Lamar
UT-Austin
Texas Woman's University
UMBC
Baylor
Baylor
Tarrant County College/TCU
Baylor
North Texas
Texas Southern (UT-Austin Law School)
Baylor
Houston
UT-Austin
LSU
Texas A&M
St. Mary's
UT-Pan American
UT-Austin
Lamar
UT-Arlington
Angelo State
Central State University (Dr. who did residency at UT Medical Center in Houston)
UT-Austin
UT-Pan American
Texas Tech
UT-Pan American
Oral Roberts
Dartmouth

Then again, this could all change...

Mayor Quimby: Demand? Who are you to demand anything? I run this town. You're just a bunch of low-income nobodies!
Quimby's Assistant: [sotto voce] Uh, election in November. Election in November.
Mayor Quimby: What!?!? Again!?!?!? This stupid country.

What I was told is that the state legislature was not in session when A&M announced they were leaving, and governor and the heads of one of the two chambers of the assembly (those who had the power to call it back) were A&M alums.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 24, 2014, 04:17:24 PM
What I was told is that the state legislature was not in session when A&M announced they were leaving, and governor and the heads of one of the two chambers of the assembly (those who had the power to call it back) were A&M alums.

Not sure how that translates into political top cover. If UNC or UVA want to move to the B1G they're going.

Quote from: keefe on May 24, 2014, 04:30:37 PM
Not sure how that translates into political top cover. If UNC or UVA want to move to the B1G they're going.

If they can get past the grant of rights issue

If Notre Dame could get over thinking they're hot crap, they would jump from their part time ACC partnership for the big 10, probably their last chance

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 24, 2014, 04:17:24 PM
What I was told is that the state legislature was not in session when A&M announced they were leaving, and governor and the heads of one of the two chambers of the assembly (those who had the power to call it back) were A&M alums.

You heard incorrectly.

The Speaker of the Texas House in 2011 was a Vanderbilt alum and has held that position since 2009.
The Lieutenant Governor (President of the Texas Senate) is an Arizona alumnus and has held that position since 2003.
The Presidents pro tempore of the Texas Senate at the time the decision was made were Texas Tech and Angelo State grads, respectively.

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on May 24, 2014, 06:37:10 PM
You heard incorrectly.

The Speaker of the Texas House in 2011 was a Vanderbilt alum and has held that position since 2009.
The Lieutenant Governor (President of the Texas Senate) is an Arizona alumnus and has held that position since 2003.
The Presidents pro tempore of the Texas Senate at the time the decision was made were Texas Tech and Angelo State grads, respectively.

Well clearly I did hear wrong.  Thank you.

Quote from: Buzz Williams' Spillproof Chiclets Cup on May 24, 2014, 06:37:10 PM
Angelo State grad

I have spent time in San Angelo, TX - home of USAF Intel and one of only a few AFBs without an operational runway. We had to land at the local commercial airport. San Angelo isn't the end of the earth but you sure as hell can smell it from there. What a god forsaken place.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 24, 2014, 05:00:23 PM
If they can get past the grant of rights issue

What are you hearing on that?

Quote from: keefe on May 24, 2014, 11:06:04 PM
What are you hearing on that?

I'm saying if UNC or UVa or Ga Tech, etc wanted to go to the Big Ten, they would have to get past the Grant of Rights they signed with the ACC.

Those are the rumored schools IF the Big Ten were to expand.  They meet all their criteria.  New markets, AAU membership, football, etc.  Doesn't mean these schools want to leave, but these 3 and KU were the 4 I have consistently heard of.  Duke has been thrown around, but distant on the list as the Big Ten isn't wild about taking on a private school.  They'll do it if is ND and of course they have NU, but not high on their list like some of the others.  This is all a big if.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 25, 2014, 12:12:26 AM
I'm saying if UNC or UVa or Ga Tech, etc wanted to go to the Big Ten, they would have to get past the Grant of Rights they signed with the ACC.

Those are the rumored schools IF the Big Ten were to expand.  They meet all their criteria.  New markets, AAU membership, football, etc.  Doesn't mean these schools want to leave, but these 3 and KU were the 4 I have consistently heard of.  Duke has been thrown around, but distant on the list as the Big Ten isn't wild about taking on a private school.  They'll do it if is ND and of course they have NU, but not high on their list like some of the others.  This is all a big if.

I agree these are the 4 of interest to Big Ten. I have ACC ties and my general sense is that most ACC schools are happy with the conference. The only one who would like to jump ship at this point is FSU but they are waiting to see the resolution of Maryland before they even consider it.

Follow the money. It is that simple.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-network-hits-the-nyc-jackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

Quote from: ecc5051 on May 26, 2014, 10:19:15 AM
Follow the money. It is that simple.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-network-hits-the-nyc-jackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html

You can follow the money AND still achieve their goals....which is what they've done.  Adding Rutgers does next to nothing for them from a competitive standpoint, but it expands their territory and that leads to subscribers

Quote from: ecc5051 on May 26, 2014, 10:19:15 AM
Follow the money. It is that simple.
http://awfulannouncing.com/2014/big-ten-network-hits-the-nyc-jackpot-worth-tens-of-millions-of-dollars.html
[/quote

What's interesting is that these initiatives by the BTN conform to the traditional modes of content and consumption. Unfortunately, technology, adoption rates, and consumption methods, patterns, and behaviors are changing drastically so that the traditional model may no longer be effective or optimal in the future.

You are correct keefe, but how exactly should the BTN approach this?  I mean, there is a lot of money riding on this to guess wrong if the traditional model *may* no longer be effective.

The BTN itself was a break from the traditional model.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 26, 2014, 11:00:40 AM
You can follow the money AND still achieve their goals....which is what they've done.  Adding Rutgers does next to nothing for them from a competitive standpoint, but it expands their territory and that leads to subscribers

Which expands their income which Delaney is betting expands their competitiveness.  Having games broadcast in the eastern markets should also help recruiting which should enhance competitiveness, as well. Utilizing the income advantage that the Big Ten will have over the SEC during the window between the new BTN deal and the next SEC deal is the Big Ten's best chance to close the competitive gap in football with the SEC.

Quote from: LittleMurs on May 26, 2014, 01:06:01 PM
Which expands their income which Delaney is betting expands their competitiveness.  Having games broadcast in the eastern markets should also help recruiting which should enhance competitiveness, as well. Utilizing the income advantage that the Big Ten will have over the SEC during the window between the new BTN deal and the next SEC deal is the Big Ten's best chance to close the competitive gap in football with the SEC.

Correct, though the key here is inside out thinking, not the other way around.  Too many people here target certain schools for expansion because they are "good in basketball"..see UCONN.  The reality is, the Big Ten has expanded with not the greatest athletic schools, taking AAU schools and in new territories.  The theory being that the Big Ten, new exposure, etc will lift those schools athletic prospects, not the other way around.  The money comes regardless of who they add because of the territorial expansion.

This is why I've said so many times that it isn't who, it's WHERE.  If Florida State wanted to join the Big Ten, I highly doubt the Big Ten would take them.  Yet, the Big Ten would take UNC, a school much further down the football pedigree.  Same for UVA or Georgia Tech.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 26, 2014, 11:24:57 AM
You are correct keefe, but how exactly should the BTN approach this?  I mean, there is a lot of money riding on this to guess wrong if the traditional model *may* no longer be effective.

The BTN itself was a break from the traditional model.

What model are you guys defining as traditional?

The expansion model, the television model?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 26, 2014, 01:28:30 PM
Correct, though the key here is inside out thinking, not the other way around.  Too many people here target certain schools for expansion because they are "good in basketball"..see UCONN.  The reality is, the Big Ten has expanded with not the greatest athletic schools, taking AAU schools and in new territories.  The theory being that the Big Ten, new exposure, etc will lift those schools athletic prospects, not the other way around.  The money comes regardless of who they add because of the territorial expansion.

This is why I've said so many times that it isn't who, it's WHERE.  If Florida State wanted to join the Big Ten, I highly doubt the Big Ten would take them.  Yet, the Big Ten would take UNC, a school much further down the football pedigree.  Same for UVA or Georgia Tech.

Florida State interested in SEC not Big Ten. Georgia Tech a very good Big Ten fit. Academic pedigree and brings Atlanta. Also they are not really in the vanguard of the ACC so an easy switch  for them . UNC DUke and UVA kind of tied at the hip with snob appeal of the alumni. Getting them to jump may be easier said than done.

Quote from: Texas Western on May 26, 2014, 09:31:03 PM
Getting them to jump may be easier said than done.

"Virtue never has been as respectable as money."  --  Samuel Clemens

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 26, 2014, 01:28:30 PM
Correct, though the key here is inside out thinking, not the other way around.  Too many people here target certain schools for expansion because they are "good in basketball"..see UCONN.  The reality is, the Big Ten has expanded with not the greatest athletic schools, taking AAU schools and in new territories.  The theory being that the Big Ten, new exposure, etc will lift those schools athletic prospects, not the other way around.  The money comes regardless of who they add because of the territorial expansion.

This is why I've said so many times that it isn't who, it's WHERE.  If Florida State wanted to join the Big Ten, I highly doubt the Big Ten would take them.  Yet, the Big Ten would take UNC, a school much further down the football pedigree.  Same for UVA or Georgia Tech.

What do you think the B10 will look like in 15 years? Similar or same to what it is now?

Quote from: Texas Western on May 26, 2014, 09:31:03 PM
Florida State interested in SEC not Big Ten. Georgia Tech a very good Big Ten fit. Academic pedigree and brings Atlanta. Also they are not really in the vanguard of the ACC so an easy switch  for them . UNC DUke and UVA kind of tied at the hip with snob appeal of the alumni. Getting them to jump may be easier said than done.

Delaney is a UNC grad and would really love for them to join the B1G.

UNC football fans would like them to be part of the SEC but the academic powers-to-be would not go for that and in that regard, the B1G is a much better fit. Dook is the problem child...great basketball history both men and women, nothing much in any other sport than lacrosse and soccer. They play football in a glorified high school stadium. Don't think the B1G wants two Northwesterns.

According to some people I know in North Carolina, I don't think UNC is as tied to Duke as people think they are. 

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 27, 2014, 10:11:03 AM
According to some people I know in North Carolina, I don't think UNC is as tied to Duke as people think they are. 

This is correct. People only need look at what has transpired over the past decade to understand that tradition has no place at this table.

Quote from: keefe on May 27, 2014, 10:13:39 AM
This is correct. People only need look at what has transpired over the past decade to understand that tradition has no place at this table.

Agreed, which is why people should quit listening to stuff politicians and schools officials say, and look at what is actually happening and why.

Here is a free hint: It rhymes with "runny".

Everything else is a secondary factor. As that revenue settles in, you'll see a second round of evolution and consolidation over the next 10 years. 

Conferences are now basically operated as a for-profit endeavor, and shareholders (schools) are going to want financial growth.

Quote from: keefe on May 27, 2014, 10:13:39 AM
This is correct. People only need look at what has transpired over the past decade to understand that tradition has no place at this table.

I also wonder to what extent any private school can last in this new model of big college sports. Even Notre Dame is doomed long term, IMO. It's just going to take them a bit longer than it's taken Marquette, etc.

Quote from: warrior07 on May 27, 2014, 10:57:30 AM
I also wonder to what extent any private school can last in this new model of big college sports. Even Notre Dame is doomed long term, IMO. It's just going to take them a bit longer than it's taken Marquette, etc.

Here are the list of BCS level, private football schools:

Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, Stanford, Notre Dame.

All of these schools have endowments in excess of $1B, except for Miami which is about $900M.  (Or twice the size of Marquette's.)

And yet for all of these schools, recent success has had trouble proving sustainable. 

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 27, 2014, 11:16:04 AM


Here are the list of BCS level, private football schools:

Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, Stanford, Notre Dame.

All of these schools have endowments in excess of $1B, except for Miami which is about $900M.  (Or twice the size of Marquette's.)

And yet for all of these schools, recent success has had trouble proving sustainable. 

What about USC? BYU?

Quote from: Bleuteaux on May 27, 2014, 11:21:20 AM
What about USC? BYU?

Oh thanks for USC.  Completely missed that. 

BYU isn't a member of a BCS conference.  They are independent in football and don't have the agreement that ND has.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 27, 2014, 08:35:56 AM
What do you think the B10 will look like in 15 years? Similar or same to what it is now?

I think slightly bigger, keeping with their academic mission of AAU schools, geographic expansion.  I know you keep saying RUNNY MONEY, that's fine...you can do both.  The bigger question is how does college athletics look in 15 years.  

I don't believe in the national Big Ten with 32 teams or whatever was thrown around here earlier.  Anything is possible, but in my view they will pull a NASCAR at that point and expand too far, lose their roots and people will become disenchanted.

Quote from: The Sultan of Slurpery on May 27, 2014, 10:11:03 AM
According to some people I know in North Carolina, I don't think UNC is as tied to Duke as people think they are. 

Correct.

I would love to see the ACC crumble right before Brents eyes and leave him and VT sitting in the ruins.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 27, 2014, 12:47:42 PM
I think slightly bigger, keeping with their academic mission of AAU schools, geographic expansion.  I know you keep saying RUNNY MONEY, that's fine...you can do both.  The bigger question is how does college athletics look in 15 years.  

I don't believe in the national Big Ten with 32 teams or whatever was thrown around here earlier.  Anything is possible, but in my view they will pull a NASCAR at that point and expand too far, lose their roots and people will become disenchanted.

I think all things considered equal, the B10 would love to only be comprised of the top athletic and academic institutions. So, I agree that their primary targets will be AAU schools that have the size and market that they want.  

HOWEVER, where I disagree with you is that they will stay limited to that philosophy. I think in the next 15 years they will accept a non-AAU school(s) and/or limited members (think UND for Hockey, or MU for hoops, or Notre Dame, etc.).

I don't think the evolution of college athletics is going to stop. There is too much money going around to get people to say "Nah, no thanks. We're good."

As far as over-expansion, it's always a risk with whatever product you have. Apple killed it with the iphone, Microsoft got killed with the Zune (relatively). Blackberry didn't scout out enough new revenue sources or emerging markets, and they got buried. NASCAR was hot, but lost some of it's luster.

My point is, this is about money now, and while the incremental gains won't be as great, I don't think they are going to stop trying to add revenue, even if its from Hockey, or Basketball, or whatever. They are going to leverage every piece of content they have to MAKE MORE MONEY.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 27, 2014, 01:54:57 PM
I think all things considered equal, the B10 would love to only be comprised of the top athletic and academic institutions. So, I agree that their primary targets will be AAU schools that have the size and market that they want.  

HOWEVER, where I disagree with you is that they will stay limited to that philosophy. I think in the next 15 years they will accept a non-AAU school(s) and/or limited members (think UND for Hockey, or MU for hoops, or Notre Dame, etc.).

I don't think the evolution of college athletics is going to stop. There is too much money going around to get people to say "Nah, no thanks. We're good."

As far as over-expansion, it's always a risk with whatever product you have. Apple killed it with the iphone, Microsoft got killed with the Zune (relatively). Blackberry didn't scout out enough new revenue sources or emerging markets, and they got buried. NASCAR was hot, but lost some of it's luster.

My point is, this is about money now, and while the incremental gains won't be as great, I don't think they are going to stop trying to add revenue, even if its from Hockey, or Basketball, or whatever. They are going to leverage every piece of content they have to MAKE MORE MONEY.

They might try, but there isn't much that is accretive in those sports.  To get more revenue, someone ultimately has to be willing to watch and pay for it.  That isn't happening right now. 

Quote from: chitownwarrior2011 on May 27, 2014, 01:43:42 PM
I would love to see the ACC crumble right before Brents eyes and leave him and VT sitting in the ruins.

I would too. Not because of Buzz. But it sets the table for later. College athletics is evolving and one day we may see schools like Wake Forest and Duke give up their football teams to save money. And guess what conference will be waiting to welcome them with open arms.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on May 27, 2014, 03:32:44 PM
I would too. Not because of Buzz. But it sets the table for later. College athletics is evolving and one day we may see schools like Wake Forest and Duke give up their football teams to save money. And guess what conference will be waiting to welcome them with open arms.

This. People criticize the Big East because it isn't as strong as it was prior to 2013 and as much as we hate it, its true. However, it provided extreme stability in the years to come and still very competitive with very successful teams.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 27, 2014, 03:07:08 PM
They might try, but there isn't much that is accretive in those sports.  To get more revenue, someone ultimately has to be willing to watch and pay for it.  That isn't happening right now.  

Live content is in demand for advertisers right now. It's DVR proof and if B10 already owns all of the equipment and pays the staff salaries with broadcasting college football, it's not hard to be profitable adding incremental sports.

While college basketball, hockey, lacrosse and baseball aren't big revenue generators right now, in theory they have potential to make revenue for the B10 Network.

Obviously football is the king, 100x over. But, that doesn't mean there isn't still some money to be made.

I think in another 5 years you're going to see the B10 consider additional revenue streams from these incremental additions.

Oh, and yes, I know the B10 would turn their nose up at certain football schools... but I could also envision a situation where there is soooooo much money on the line that they make an "exception".

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 27, 2014, 04:29:17 PM
Live content is in demand for advertisers right now. It's DVR proof and if B10 already owns all of the equipment and pays the staff salaries with broadcasting college football, it's not hard to be profitable adding incremental sports.

While college basketball, hockey, lacrosse and baseball aren't big revenue generators right now, in theory they have potential to make revenue for the B10 Network.

Obviously football is the king, 100x over. But, that doesn't mean there isn't still some money to be made.

I think in another 5 years you're going to see the B10 consider additional revenue streams from these incremental additions.

Oh, and yes, I know the B10 would turn their nose up at certain football schools... but I could also envision a situation where there is soooooo much money on the line that they make an "exception".

Live content still has to be worthy content.  All kinds of live content today that people don't watch, even though it is live.  Is it compelling, is it worth watching, etc?  Sure, ESPN needs to put on women's softball all weekend long to fill hours, but no one is watching...I mean literally NO ONE.  College hockey, no one.  Men's college baseball, no one.  Live sports is absolutely DVR proof and those in the industry have said this for many years, it is why sports channels charge such crazy fees.  That being said, the ratings still aren't that good and the cost per rating horrendous.  This is where the tide has to turn. 

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 27, 2014, 05:23:49 PM
Live content still has to be worthy content.  All kinds of live content today that people don't watch, even though it is live.  Is it compelling, is it worth watching, etc?  Sure, ESPN needs to put on women's softball all weekend long to fill hours, but no one is watching...I mean literally NO ONE.  College hockey, no one.  Men's college baseball, no one.  Live sports is absolutely DVR proof and those in the industry have said this for many years, it is why sports channels charge such crazy fees.  That being said, the ratings still aren't that good and the cost per rating horrendous.  This is where the tide has to turn. 

Nobody watches college basketball? Nobody watches college hockey?

You know who watches? Males under 50. You know who LOVES males under 50? Every advertiser ever. (hyperbole).

I mean, I get it, outside of football, college sports is niche programing. But, that doesn't mean there isn't money in that niche. Just ask N-N-N-NAPA know how.

Pac-12 Conference: Record revenue, per-school splits, Scott's compensation and more

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/collegesports/2014/05/27/pac-12-conference-record-revenue-per-school-splits-scotts-compensation-and-more/

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 27, 2014, 05:23:49 PM
ESPN needs to put on women's softball all weekend long to fill hours, but no one is watching...I mean literally NO ONE.   

You are wrong. Walk into any Subaru dealership west of the Rockies and they have women's softball on the tube.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on May 27, 2014, 11:16:04 AM


Here are the list of BCS level, private football schools:

Boston College, Duke, Wake Forest, Miami, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, TCU, Baylor, Stanford, Notre Dame.

All of these schools have endowments in excess of $1B, except for Miami which is about $900M.  (Or twice the size of Marquette's.)

And yet for all of these schools, recent success has had trouble proving sustainable. 

Syracuse, SMU , Rice also

Quote from: Texas Western on May 28, 2014, 04:21:42 PM
Syracuse, SMU , Rice also

Syracuse yes.  Not SMU or Rice.

Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on May 28, 2014, 06:59:51 PM
Syracuse yes.  Not SMU or Rice.

SMU endowment $1.268 billion

They aren't a BCS level program.

Quote from: Guns n Ammo on May 27, 2014, 05:41:50 PM
Nobody watches college basketball? Nobody watches college hockey?

You know who watches? Males under 50. You know who LOVES males under 50? Every advertiser ever. (hyperbole).

I mean, I get it, outside of football, college sports is niche programing. But, that doesn't mean there isn't money in that niche. Just ask N-N-N-NAPA know how.

In the grand scheme of ratings...nobody watches college hockey, not for the regular season games.  The Frozen Four, sure....that's worth something.  But a game with RPI vs Wisconsin, the numbers aren't there.  Niche is nice, but you ultimately have to be able to sell it.  Is it accretive enough to generate the dollars one is talking about?  Personally, I don't see it.  I'm in a position right now to argue the Los Angeles Dodgers aren't accretive for the money being asked or an entire Pac 12 Network, let alone a network that wants to add some college hockey, or even basketball. 

It's nice to have hours of content and new things to watch.  It isn't nice to spend millions if not billions for it and be left holding the bag because no one watches it, or too few to justify the cost.  That's the key.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 28, 2014, 07:26:23 PM
In the grand scheme of ratings...nobody watches college hockey, not for the regular season games.  The Frozen Four, sure....that's worth something.  But a game with RPI vs Wisconsin, the numbers aren't there.  Niche is nice, but you ultimately have to be able to sell it.  Is it accretive enough to generate the dollars one is talking about?  Personally, I don't see it.  I'm in a position right now to argue the Los Angeles Dodgers aren't accretive for the money being asked or an entire Pac 12 Network, let alone a network that wants to add some college hockey, or even basketball.  

It's nice to have hours of content and new things to watch.  It isn't nice to spend millions if not billions for it and be left holding the bag because no one watches it, or too few to justify the cost.  That's the key.

You're not wrong, but in the grand scheme of things, nobody watches anything but football anymore, and that includes all forms of television (scripted, reality, mini-series, etc.).

The entire marketplace is extremely segmented and niche... except for football.

It's all simple speculation on my part... but I seen more sports channels purchasing college athletics broadcast rights FS1). I've seen ESPN create an entire channel dedicated to college athletics.

A desirable niche is watching this stuff.

I don't think the B10 is going to run out and sign up North Dakota tomorrow... but at some point the football revenue is going to level off, and I don't think these guys are likely to just stand pat. They could have done that with 10 teams, or 11 teams, or 12 teams, etc. etc. They will add non-aau, and/or partial members in the next 15 years.

They will continue to look for more revenue everywhere they can. It won't stop. Get ready for more corp. sponsorships with the B10 too. We've only scratched the surface.

Big 12 not getting memo apparently.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11066269/big-12-ads-say-no-discussions-expansion

Man did BYU make a mistake dropping out of the MWC.