5 Schools The Big Ten Could Have Added That Were Better Options ...

[NashvilleOrange]

Sorry to put this on you, but just curious, do we know a final tally of the difference in $$ from B10 to ACC? How is a conference in the heart of a rust belt that is continually losing population, have a better outlook financially than conferences in the West, or SE?

Big Ten makes about a few million more a year right now (20 vs 17 million) but their projections are where the difference starts to increase. As others have mentioned, in all likelihood the cable companies around their new markets aren't going to bend over backwards to put a network (Big Ten) on basic cable that has very small niche audience. Also, the projections on their new main contract (ESPN or Fox Sports) are probably a little too optimistic. Overall, I'd expect most conferences to be similar in pay-out, the ACC has look-ins in their TV contract which should be pretty useful. The SEC most definitely will surpass the Big Ten in revenue once their network is rolling and will end up being a good ally for scheduling purposes if/when the ACC gets their network off the ground.

 

[Scooch]

But even if every TV in those metro areas was tuned to the BTN 24-7, the B1G doesn't get any additional money because cable operators in NY, CT, VA, and DC are still only paying $.10 per subscriber instead of the $1 per subscriber they get from the operators in MD and NJ. Then to add gasoline to the fire is Comcast's refusal to put the BTN on the regular tier (like ESPN 1 & 2) instead of leaving it in its present place on the premium sports tier, so they're only going to get the $1 from the subscribers of the premium tier and not $1 from everyone.

I'm on record as saying that I think the B1G's revenue projections may be far too sunny given the tier changes that need to occur. So I don't disagree with you.

My point was that the reason the B1G added Rutgers and Maryland was entirely to force that tier change. There were zero other reasons.

Zero.

 

[TexanMark]

Not to blow Scooch's cover: When Scooch talks cable he speaks from the inside.

 

[Alsacs]

I have been beating the drum on this board for over the past year the whole reason the B1G added Rutgers over U-Conn was that NJ has 8.6 million residents and CT has 2.2 million and the B1G wanted the cable money from NJ for BTN over the actual decent athletic dept in U-Conn. However, U-Conn can continue to #DreamB1G because when the B1G wants 15 and 16 its obvious U-Conn would be better than any of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas if the Big XII was the conference swallowed up by the B1G and Pac-12.

 

[SU2NASA]

Not to blow Scooch's cover: When Scooch talks cable he speaks from the inside.

Much like when I talk conference moves between the Big 12 and B1G.

 

[Scooch]

Not to blow Scooch's cover: When Scooch talks cable he speaks from the inside.

Inside is right...

 

[Scooch]

I have been beating the drum on this board for over the past year the whole reason the B1G added Rutgers over U-Conn was that NJ has 8.6 million residents and CT has 2.2 million and the B1G wanted the cable money from NJ for BTN over the actual decent athletic dept in U-Conn. However, U-Conn can continue to #DreamB1G because when the B1G wants 15 and 16 its obvious U-Conn would be better than any of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas if the Big XII was the conference swallowed up by the B1G and Pac-12.

CT's population is actually 3.6 million, but obviously the point that NJ is much more populated than CT is true.

Also, population is much less important than the # of TV homes. Which in this case gets a bit muddled, as NJ is split entirely between one half being in the NYC DMA and the other half being in the Philly DMA. There actually is no NJ DMA, from a TV standpoint. Meanwhile all of CT, save for Fairfield County, is part of the Hartford/New Haven DMA.

Interestingly though, here's a fun thought exercise to work through... You're someone working for the BTN and negotiating with major cable TV providers about bumping your network up to a tier that will net you a much higher subscriber fee... In which state, NJ or CT, would you expect to receive more resistance to your proposition, knowing about the fan avidity of each state university's athletic program?

In theory 8.6 million is greater than 3.6 million. In practice...?

 

[WoadBlue]

Eh, the B1G added Rutgers for one reason, and one reason only: the hope of converting NJ and metro NYC cable TV homes into higher paying subscribers of the BTN.

It's the exact same reason they added Maryland, just substitute MD and metro DC for NJ and metro NYC.

Of course there were "better" schools to add from an athletics brand and performance standpoint, but that was never the point.

There was a secondary reason: to take shots at the ACC and ND. The NYC TV market is at least as important to ND as Chicago, and Rutgers is the only school located inside the NYC market that can be in a P5 league. By taking Maryland, with all its huge debt and all around incompetence, the BT was proving to us just how is boss. The hope down the road is that ND will see the light and join the BT in the next decade.

 

[WoadBlue]

I have been beating the drum on this board for over the past year the whole reason the B1G added Rutgers over U-Conn was that NJ has 8.6 million residents and CT has 2.2 million and the B1G wanted the cable money from NJ for BTN over the actual decent athletic dept in U-Conn. However, U-Conn can continue to #DreamB1G because when the B1G wants 15 and 16 its obvious U-Conn would be better than any of Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas if the Big XII was the conference swallowed up by the B1G and Pac-12.

I think the BT needs KU to use the KC TV market to try to hold back the SEC tide that is sweeping over the western half of the BT because of Missouri. Historically, Nebraska football has been huge in the KC market, but with Mozzou in the SEC, Nebraska will lose almost all its hold in KC - unless KU joins the BT.

 

[Scooch]

I think the BT needs KU to use the KC TV market to try to hold back the SEC tide that is sweeping over the western half of the BT because of Missouri. Historically, Nebraska football has been huge in the KC market, but with Mozzou in the SEC, Nebraska will lose almost all its hold in KC - unless KU joins the BT.

The KC DMA is tiny. If any conference commish ever did anything with the KC DMA in mind he should be fired and jailed immediately.

 

[Scooch]

There was a secondary reason: to take shots at the ACC and ND. The NYC TV market is at least as important to ND as Chicago, and Rutgers is the only school located inside the NYC market that can be in a P5 league. By taking Maryland, with all its huge debt and all around incompetence, the BT was proving to us just how is boss. The hope down the road is that ND will see the light and join the BT in the next decade.

Eh, not really.

 

[IthacaMatt]

CT's population is actually 3.6 million, but obviously the point that NJ is much more populated than CT is true.

Also, population is much less important than the # of TV homes. Which in this case gets a bit muddled, as NJ is split entirely between one half being in the NYC DMA and the other half being in the Philly DMA. There actually is no NJ DMA, from a TV standpoint. Meanwhile all of CT, save for Fairfield County, is part of the Hartford/New Haven DMA.

Interestingly though, here's a fun thought exercise to work through... You're someone working for the BTN and negotiating with major cable TV providers about bumping your network up to a tier that will net you a much higher subscriber fee... In which state, NJ or CT, would you expect to receive more resistance to your proposition, knowing about the fan avidity of each state university's athletic program?

In theory 8.6 million is greater than 3.6 million. In practice...?

I think he was counting cable households, not population. Pretty sure NJ is more people than 8.6M.

 

[Scooch]

I think he was counting cable households, not population. Pretty sure NJ is more people than 8.6M.

Nope, it was people, but NJ is 8.9 million people. Apologies.

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

 

[Btstimpy]

CT's population is actually 3.6 million, but obviously the point that NJ is much more populated than CT is true.

Also, population is much less important than the # of TV homes. Which in this case gets a bit muddled, as NJ is split entirely between one half being in the NYC DMA and the other half being in the Philly DMA. There actually is no NJ DMA, from a TV standpoint. Meanwhile all of CT, save for Fairfield County, is part of the Hartford/New Haven DMA.

Interestingly though, here's a fun thought exercise to work through... You're someone working for the BTN and negotiating with major cable TV providers about bumping your network up to a tier that will net you a much higher subscriber fee... In which state, NJ or CT, would you expect to receive more resistance to your proposition, knowing about the fan avidity of each state university's athletic program?

In theory 8.6 million is greater than 3.6 million. In practice...?

I'm not a cable subscriber in Newark or any other North Jersey site, but given that Rutgers has a hard time filling up its basketball arena, and they haven't really moved the needle much in football, I wouldn't think too many subscibers in North Jersey will call up their cable provider to complain if they can't find the Rutgers game. And the ones who would will pay for the premium channel. Now if Fox has the strategy to take the Yankees away if the cable operator doesn't take Rutgers, then maybe. But I'm not sure what business sense that really makes.

I would expect in Connecticut there would be a lot more screaming to get the UConn games on TV including the Women's basketball games.

 

[Btstimpy]

They can't act unilaterally, but Delany is driven by extreme ego and desire to 'best' everyone, especially someone like Swofford, who played football at UNC the same time Delany played basketball. Delany does act to move the BT where it wants it to go, which always comes down to his desire to prove, as a number of sports writers have said about him, that he is the smartest man in the room.

Swofford is much less ego driven, but there is no doubt that he intends to position the ACC in a certain way. For example, I think Swofford decided before we ever agreed to add Miami that he wanted ND on board. And he set out to make that possible. Delany will hate him forever for that accomplishment.

Swofford has wanted ND ever since Gene Corrigan was pushing hard for ND in the 80s and early 90s. In fact, the whole ACC has wanted that. There just wasn't the appetite to do the 5 game scheduling agreement when Corrigan wanted it. There is no more of a happy camper about ND being in the ACC now than Gene Corrigan. And you are correct in that Delany doesn't like it even though he himself has ACC roots.

 

[Btstimpy]

Nebraska is a top 10=15 Football brand and does move the needle nationally somewhat in college football. Mizzou doesn't have the national cache in FB. Missouri is like the NC State of the old Big XII they were always decent, but never won squat in the 2 big sports.

If the B1G was using the Penn State model for expansion Nebraska made more sense than Mizzou. If the B1G was using the Rutgets/Maryland model for expansion than Mizzou made more sense.

Mizzou made sense for the B1G in 2012 but by that time the SEC was inviting them.

You have to also factor in the fact that the PAC 12 rejected Jim Delany's plan for a scheduling alliance between the Big Ten and PAC 12 in lieu of expansion of the Big Ten. That rejection changed his line of thinking entirely. He looked at Rutgers in 2010 and thought Rutgers to be not such a good idea at that point. What changed is that with the PAC 12 rejection and effectively the Notre Dame rejection, the Big Ten felt threatened. So they grabbed what they weren't impressed with two years earlier in what my UConn friends keep telling me is a brilliant strategic move. I tend to view it as a deperate reaction. Whether it is to avoid getting boxed in, or to save Penn State, or what have you, it is still deperate. And it will take a lot of work to bear fruit. That's when you get Napoleonic and start opening offices all over creation to plant a flag.

Here is an interview with Jim Delany just yesterday where he was asked what it would take for the Big Ten to expand again. He is against it because they would dilute themselves if they get larger. This is coming from a man that just added Rutgers. Let that sink in.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ioner-jim-delany-question-and-answer/8774193/

 

[HtownOrange]

I am enjoying this thread but surprised no one has mentioned it would be easier to list the the few schools that should NOT have gotten a Big 10 invite ahead of Rutgers than all the schools that deserve it more than Rutgers.

1) Sisters of the Poor
2) Temple (and this could change if Temple really is sold on football, unlike its first go round with the Big East)
3) Any WAC team
4) Any Big 12 team not named Oklahoma, Texas or Kansas
5) Rutgers

Seriously, even Hawaii might be a better team to add than Rutgers. Every kid would love that trip and travel already sucks for Hawaii so there would not be an issue from their perspective, plus they don't run $28MM in the red annually.

Any Florida directional school would give you as much of a fan base as Rutgers (possibly more) with access to Florida recruits.

Stepping up Stoneybrook would have made much more sense, or even convincing St. John's to bring back football.