Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[BigWoof31]

Originally Posted by Woody1968

Good point. We don't. The SEC needs to because they need more TV money, but none of the other conferences really need to, except the Big East, in order to stay an AQ.

I assure you - the SEC doesn't need more money.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by DaveyBoy

those institutions should be made to see the bigger picture of how important it is for the BigTen to not get left behind in a world of high stakes realignment.

Purdue & Sparty playing ND yearly is not going to result in the B1G being left behind in the world of college football

Originally Posted by Mrstickball

Virginia had a windfall last year of ~$80m due to something outside of their regular sports (which generated about $40m).

Ahh that's where it's coming from. Be careful about using data from a single year. From 05-09 UV's athletic department was #17 in revenue & that was primarily due to a huge bump (private donor?) in 05. Generally their revenue is hovering around the top 25...and they also seem to bank a much larger portion of their revenue than most schools (ie recording a profit rather than ratcheting up spending to match income).

Not criticizing you BTW, just mostly thinking out loud.

Originally Posted by cincibuck

And Auntie Em and Toto are saving up to put a big screen in the storm cellar.

I hear the drums echoing tonight, But she hears only whispers of some quiet conversation.
She's coming in 12:30 flight, The moonlit wings reflect the stars that guide me towards salvation.
I stopped an old man along the way, Hoping to find some long forgotten words or ancinet melodies.
He turned to me as if to say, Hurry boy, it's waiting there for you.

Originally Posted by cincibuck

Texas has overplayed their hand, used the Big 10 to get what they wanted and it backfired on them. BUT, placed in the Pac8/10/12/14/16/20 they give the conference two things it desperately needs - a balance to USC and a team in the Central Time Zone.

I really think the Pac needs to think long & hard about their Pac 8 + 8 E/W scenario. Ghettoizing 'Zona, the Sun Devils & Colorado back into a dust bowl eastern mini-conference with no access to the coast is not a recipe for long term stability.

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

If further defections (UT and/or OU) occur from the "Big" "12" to the Pac-12, I fully expect Boise State to go there too.

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

Pac-12's academic status is lower than that of the B1G. Great schools in Cal, Stanford, and UCLA; very good schools in UWash and USC; bottom feeders too. Boise would not be the lowest ranked school in the conference given the USNews rating of Oregon State as "Tier 3."

No major conference is going to offer BSU a slot, just as no major conference was pursuing Marshall a decade ago.

Neither school has anything to offer long term.

Originally Posted by Mrstickball

How reliable has Chip Brown been in this entire affair?

Chip definitely has contacts within the UT administration.

That being said he has been used as a Longhorn mouthpiece so take anything he posts with a major helping of salt. He's deliberately being fed the information that UT wants spun for their own purposes.

Originally Posted by ScriptOhio

I don't understand all the hoopla about the Longhorn Network. That's only 15 million a year and in 20 years (with inflation) it won't be nearly as impressive.

Keep in mind that's just for Tier 3 rights.

Originally Posted by damiandoan

Has anyone really asked/answered the question; why must the B1G expand to 16, just because everyone else is expanding? Why expand just for the sake of expansion?

Of course.

The B1G isn't looking at expansion just for the sake of expansion. It's doing so to ensure position for the next hundred years. Whether that is by dominating major media markets, moving into faster growing regions of the country or adding marquee names (Nebraska).

[Woody1968]

Originally Posted by Gatorubet

1) Send Ole Miss to the ACC then, because those mooks in the Grove dress like that;
2) Who invaded whom?

Ole Miss might be a powerhouse in the ACC & that would solve the problem right there, as the ACC could dump Miami, you SEC guys wouldn't have to split up Alabama and Auburn, and both leagues could stay at 12 members.

[Woody1968]

Originally Posted by BigWoof31

I assure you - the SEC doesn't need more money.

Ah, but think of all that $$$ you'll get when the tv deal gets renegotiated.

[Mrstickball]

Originally Posted by damiandoan

Has anyone really asked/answered the question; why must the B1G expand to 16, just because everyone else is expanding? Why expand just for the sake of expansion?

Because college sports is trending into larger conferences. Since we initiated the start of the rush by snagging Nebraska and dooming the Big-XII, other conferences have sought to emulate us. We have a major cash cow in the BTN that is only growing larger. By having more schools and TV footprints in a given conference, more schools can get funding, ergo improving their entire facility.

If the conference re-alignment rush continues past 12 by the SEC adding a 13th team, then every conference must understand that the SEC will eventually add a 14th team, which will give them an advantage in TV rights, among other things. Additionally, by striking first, they get to choose who they invite, and who they add. By being the last man on the totem pole, a conference will get a far worse selection of colleges to invite. What happens if the B1G decides to say "12 is enough" and then every major team goes to another conference, and we're left with Big East scraps and no Notre Dame? In such a case, we're screwed as the Pac-12 will likely add 4 more very good teams (Boise State and a few teams from the former Big XII). The SEC will add 4 very good teams (TAMU, possibly former Big XII teams and potentially FSU or WVU). The ACC will likely win the war off attrition with the Big East and consolidate their conferences to keep AQ status...

That leaves us, if we choose to do nothing, as the one with nothing. Expansion must benefit our conference. By waiting, it hurts us dearly as we will negotiate from a position of weakness and not strength. Look at our last two colleges - they were home runs with 2 of the arguably best schools in the mid-west. Are we going to follow that up with Syracuse? Central Michigan? Missouri? Or are we going to go after schools like Notre Dame with huge followings, endowments, and cash in which to add to the Big Ten war chest?

In the end, failing to expand and remain competitive would be like Wendy's saying "We've created the worlds best hamburgers. We will never, ever, add a single item to the menu until Dave Thomas comes out of the grave to tell us so".

[ScriptOhio]

Originally Posted by BigWoof31

I assure you - the SEC doesn't need more money.

Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, and Ruppert Murdoch don't need any more money either; but they sure as hell act like they want more.

Greed is good!

[DaddyBigBucks]

I still have not seen an argument that more teams necessarily means more money per team. I see a great deal of rhetoric that not expanding = bad; but not much that convinces me this is necessarily true.

More teams in other conferences = more people watching other conferences. True enough

But does it necessarily mean more people watching per game? I can see some potential rationale for people saying this might be true (rationale that no one has offered by the way), but I see nothing that convinces me it will materialize. Until someone finds a way of putting more hours into the week, I'm watching the Buckeyes and maybe one other game each week. Whether the B1G adds more teams has no effect whatever on that.

[kinch]

Originally Posted by Mrstickball

In the end, failing to expand and remain competitive would be like Wendy's saying "We've created the worlds best hamburgers. We will never, ever, add a single item to the menu until Dave Thomas comes out of the grave to tell us so".

Hey man, no reason to bring Wendy's into this. If I ever eat fast food, I eat Wendy's out of Ohio pride. And their menu doesn't need changing. Oh, I suppose I eat Taco Bell when visiting home, but that isn't fast food, it's fine cuisine to me.

I agree with you though. I hope the Big Ten is talking to schools now. We need to be proactive. I would still like Missouri, Notre Dame, and two of the following: Georgia Tech, Maryland, Rutgers, and Syracuse.

[Mrstickball]

Originally Posted by kinch

Hey man, no reason to bring Wendy's into this. If I ever eat fast food, I eat Wendy's out of Ohio pride. And their menu doesn't need changing. Oh, I suppose I eat Taco Bell when visiting home, but that isn't fast food, it's fine cuisine to me.

I agree with you though. I hope the Big Ten is talking to schools now. We need to be proactive. I would still like Missouri, Notre Dame, and two of the following: Georgia Tech, Maryland, Rutgers, and Syracuse.

Wendy's is great, but the three best things they've ever made are the Double Stack (new), their new fries, and the vanilla frosty. Likewise, our enjoyment of the conference will be much better if we have better teams to play. Imagine snagging ND and another cream-of-the-crop football or basketball team.

[korchiki]

I want to throw something out there. We have always heard that certain schools would be banned from being extended an invitation because current schools hold the advantage of being in a more prestigious conference.

Iowa - Iowa State (Will always be viewed as Fredo)
Ohio State - Cincy (obviously they don't make it for other reasons but tOSU will never let another school from Ohio into the B1G
PSU - Pitt

Are there any other schools that this would apply to? I can't really think of anyone for Minnesota, Mich/Mich St., Wisconsin, the Indiana school (ND would trump all).

Does Nebraska have a natural rival they wouldn't want to allow entry?

[ScriptOhio]

Originally Posted by Woody1968

Latest reports are that The SEC was set to invite A&M, but the had to stop and put in a stipulation that all other Big 12 schools waive the right to bring legal action, because Baylor is now threatening to sue.

[Woody1968]

Originally Posted by korchiki

I want to throw something out there. We have always heard that certain schools would be banned from being extended an invitation because current schools hold the advantage of being in a more prestigious conference.

Iowa - Iowa State (Will always be viewed as Fredo)
Ohio State - Cincy (obviously they don't make it for other reasons but tOSU will never let another school from Ohio into the B1G
PSU - Pitt

Are there any other schools that this would apply to? I can't really think of anyone for Minnesota, Mich/Mich St., Wisconsin, the Indiana school (ND would trump all).

Does Nebraska have a natural rival they wouldn't want to allow entry?

Penn State has been lobbying FOR Pitt, not against them.

As for Nebraska, I don't think there is a problem. There is no other FBS school in the state, and their main rival for many years was Oklahoma. Nebraska isn't really a hotbed of recruiting, although the High Schools there used to play the option style of football that UNL played up until the end of the 1990s. They probably wouldn't mind the addition of Oklahoma or Missouri for the sake of rivalry, but I can't see them being happy with the idea of Texas joining.

[Woody1968]

Originally Posted by Mrstickball

Wendy's is great, but the three best things they've ever made are the Double Stack (new), their new fries, and the vanilla frosty. Likewise, our enjoyment of the conference will be much better if we have better teams to play. Imagine snagging ND and another cream-of-the-crop football or basketball team.

Wendy's is only good in Ohio - Every time I go here in New york, it is terrible. Plus the new fries suck.

[Muck]

Originally Posted by korchiki

Does Nebraska have a (un)natural rival they wouldn't want to allow entry?

Texas

[Mrstickball]

Originally Posted by DaddyBigBucks

I still have not seen an argument that more teams necessarily means more money per team. I see a great deal of rhetoric that not expanding = bad; but not much that convinces me this is necessarily true.

More teams in other conferences = more people watching other conferences. True enough

But does it necessarily mean more people watching per game? I can see some potential rationale for people saying this might be true (rationale that no one has offered by the way), but I see nothing that convinces me it will materialize. Until someone finds a way of putting more hours into the week, I'm watching the Buckeyes and maybe one other game each week. Whether the B1G adds more teams has no effect whatever on that.

Bigger matchups = more eyeballs = more cash. No one is arguing we go out and get the first 4 colleges that would want to join, but that we get 4 that will actually benefit us. That is why we have to be the first to strike. There are only so many colleges that will add to the B1G, rather than be the median of success in the B1G in both sports successes, and revenue generation. Additionally, winning teams do better in terms of viewership - thus the need to add good teams. I'll throw out this ESPN link to Notre Dame's contract and viewship statistics: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3452161 - essentially, they doubled their TV audience when they were 9-3, 10-3 and the like vs. when they were 3-9. There is likely little difference between such metrics for ND and the rest of the Big Ten which again pushes the argument that we need bigger, better teams. The SEC makes a killing being the premier conference, and there should be no harm in trying to be better than them. Success on the field with good teams will translate to more money for the conference.

Additionally: what do you think earns the conference more money: Nebraska-OSU or Indiana-OSU? Before we expanded, it'd be Indiana-OSU. Additionally, the CCG adds a huge amount of cash via an extra, tier-1 game. If we add more teams with large TV footprints and fan bases, then they are going to want to watch their team on BTN against other B1G schools. Therefore, it adds money to the pot.

For example, Notre Dame has a 5-year, $50 million USD (est.) deal with NBC to showcase their games. That amount of money is based on the perceived advertising revenue that can be generated plus NBC's markup. Now imagine that same $50 million USD of worth being added to the conference plus all the additional viewers' worth of content through the additional BTN shows about Notre Dame - something NBC makes nothing off of.

People like big games and big stories. With huge fan bases of certain teams we can grab, BTN and B1G can add significant revenues to the conference. Such monies will not materialize if crappy teams are added - thus the desire to strike first for new teams.

I'll throw out a scenario we discuss: B1G adding Georgia Tech. If GT has the Atlanta Metro area effectively locked up for viewership, the Big Ten would effectively add more TVs than the entire state of Wisconsin - assuming there were no additional TVs added anywhere else. If each TV set is worth about $0.36 per month (FrankTheTank's estimated value), then such a team is worth about $24 million per year, assuming no sets outside of Atlanta were added. Compare that to say.....Syracuse that may draw 1/3rd the TV value, and you see why bigger schools in certain locations are more valuable. Throw in population changes in the US that are favoring states outside the rust belt, and there is even more perceived value in expanding the footprint to the south and west.