1. BuckeyePlanet is looking for writers! If you would like to be featured on our new front page, contact @LordJeffBuck or @jlb1705 with an idea or an article you have already written. We're looking for interesting and concise posts, whether they are one-timers or recurring features. Or, simply make a great post in the forums and you may see it promoted to the front page!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Show your support for BuckeyePlanet! Join the discussion or jump in and get your 2015 banner!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet, like us on Facebook!
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Guest! I want your feedback about the front page. See this thread and post something, anything!
    Dismiss Notice

Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

Discussion in 'College Football' started by Mike80, Jul 26, 2007.


Which Teams Should the Big Ten Add? (please limit to four selections)

  1. Boston College

    29 vote(s)
  2. Cincinnati

    17 vote(s)
  3. Connecticut

    6 vote(s)
  4. Duke

    17 vote(s)
  5. Georgia Tech

    50 vote(s)
  6. Kansas

    43 vote(s)
  7. Maryland

    66 vote(s)
  8. Missouri

    91 vote(s)
  9. North Carolina

    27 vote(s)
  10. Notre Dame

    195 vote(s)
  11. Oklahoma

    72 vote(s)
  12. Pittsburgh

    41 vote(s)
  13. Rutgers

    38 vote(s)
  14. Syracuse

    17 vote(s)
  15. Texas

    118 vote(s)
  16. Vanderbilt

    13 vote(s)
  17. Virginia

    38 vote(s)
  18. Virginia Tech

    58 vote(s)
  19. Stay at 12 teams and don't expand

    24 vote(s)
  20. Add some other school(s) not listed

    14 vote(s)
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Muck

    Muck Enjoy Every Sandwich Staff Member

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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

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

    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).
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2011
  2. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    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.
  3. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

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

    Mrstickball Sophmore

    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".
  5. ScriptOhio

    ScriptOhio Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.

    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!

  6. DaddyBigBucks

    DaddyBigBucks Still Calculating Buckeye DSC... Staff Member Bookie

    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.
  7. kinch

    kinch Wash me Staff Member

    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 likes this.
  8. Mrstickball

    Mrstickball Sophmore

    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.
    kinch likes this.
  9. korchiki

    korchiki Junior

    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?
  10. ScriptOhio

    ScriptOhio Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.


  11. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

    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.
  12. Woody1968

    Woody1968 Agent Provocateur

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

    Muck Enjoy Every Sandwich Staff Member

  14. Mrstickball

    Mrstickball Sophmore

    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.
    Last edited: Sep 7, 2011
  15. DaddyBigBucks

    DaddyBigBucks Still Calculating Buckeye DSC... Staff Member Bookie

    Lots of words... still not convinced.

    The bigger match-ups argument I can buy; but the more teams you add, the less often you play everyone. This gives you diminishing returns at some point. I see no reason why those diminishing returns don't happen when you go from 12 to 14. I'm not saying they do; but the suggestion that going from 12 to 14 is good because it means bigger match-ups only holds water in the years when you actually get the match-ups you want. And what if moving to 14 means we lose the intersectional games that we've had the last few years? Then the net addition is zero.

    As for your hypothetical of "locking up the state of Georgia". I'm not buying. You only lock up the TV sets that are watching GT right now, and that's not everyone in the state by a long shot and TV execs, advertisers and their customers know it. You are adding more viewers, but I'm still not convinced you're adding more viewers per game.

    Having said all that, my mind is still open on this. There may be an argument that sways me; but I have yet to see it.
    BigJim likes this.

Share This Page