omniorange
All Conference
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,757
- Like
- 2,963
I believe you have misunderstood what my points above were about. They weren’t about PSU’s perspective on the reasons why Rutgers should be added but rather were an attempt to think about this from the 11 other voting members’ perspectives as to why should they care about what PSU wants in regard to recruiting New Jersey and if they were worried about PSU potentially bolting for the ACC, what calculations were they making in terms of the “real chances” of PSU tucking and running? I suspect, again from their perspective, they weren’t that worried about that happening, despite your apparent belief that this was a realistic threat.
Some confusion on your part that may have been poor sentence structures on my part. When I mentioned the 11 other members in the B1G it was including Nebraska who would vote on expansion in 2012 but was only in the league for two years at that point. The 10 member Big Ten (which was mentioned once and bolded) was referring to the league that had existed from 1950 when MSU joined until PSU joined which was like 4 decades later and was referenced for historical purposes. There are reasons why, as you say, PSU “long felt that they were the red-headed stepchild”.
Again, imho, your approach to this seems to be from a PSU perspective (what their wants and needs may have been about) which in no way helps explain why the other 11 voting members of that time should care and vote Yes. Whatever valid reasons you may believe PSU had to potentially jump to the ACC, the fact remains 10 of these institutions have seen PSU up close and personal and I am willing to wager that none of those 10 thought it was a fairly likely possibility, especially given the ACC’s perceived reputation at that time in terms of avoiding tainted programs – one of the those programs being Miami which wasn’t even seriously considered for ACC expansion back in 1990 and the ACC also not even considering WVU back in 2003 as well as not even initially getting enough votes for Virginia Tech to be considered (without Virginia politics getting involved).
Also, let’s keep in mind that when this was being discussed in private with both Rutgers and Maryland, this was after Syracuse and Pitt were invited to the ACC but prior to ND going to the ACC as a partial member or Louisville replacing Maryland.
(Interesting and unrelated side note was that back in June 2010 after Nebraska was basically a lock for #12, a report came out supposedly from WFNI Indianapolis radio station that if expansion to 16 took place, the additional four members would be Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, and Syracuse. This was discussed on a FOX Sports Radio show but was never verified by WFNI as actually even being brought up on their radio station. So I filed it in the waste basket of my mind, until I started hearing things about a supposed secret pack between ND, Pitt, and SU that they either would all go to the B1G together or stay in the Big East and make that work. Again, just rumor, but might explain the weird reaction from Swarbrick when we and Pitt announced our leaving the BE for ACC. Considering how the dominoes fell shortly thereafter – Maryland and Rutgers indeed to the B1G and ND joined SU and Pitt in the ACC – makes me wonder.)
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Ultimately these other 11 members did decide to add Rutgers and Maryland. The question is why? The only possible reason has to be they believed that those adds were going to increase their revenues. How was this going to be accomplished? Neither of the two programs had sufficient brand name to increase the B1G’s coffers in terms of a renegotiated national TV contract. And this has proven to be the case – over the past 4 years on broadcast channels (ABC, FOX) Maryland has played in 4 games and Rutgers 3 games out of 90 shown. In terms of higher level sports channels (ESPN, ESPN2, FS1) Maryland has played in 9 games and Rutgers 5 games out of a possible 83. So doesn’t appear like a lot of added value in terms of the national TV contract as even you have stated in the past. Which isn’t surprising since those contracts are more about ‘brand names’ than actual proximity to markets.
So what’s left? All I can see is what they must have thought they potentially could add to the BTN coffers based upon the conference network model the B1G developed back in 2008, getting potentially $.70-.80 cents per subscriber per month in the states of New Jersey and Maryland (granted we don’t have the actual figures and of course, the model is now bucking up against a paradigm shift, but that wasn’t the case back then). But what else is realistically left? And to back this up, it is what the vast majority of statements made by Big Ten officials reflected at the time.
I believe I have always acknowledged supply and demand being impactful to the sports conference revenue equation. The likes of Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Michigan State and recent add Nebraska drive the demand side of the equation. These are the programs viewers want to see. But in terms of the BTN and how the conference network model has worked up until now, demand is literally less important (particularly overtime with an established conference network like the BTN or perhaps in terms of the upcoming ACCN with Disney/ESPN applying the strategy of bundling various networks together). In cases like these subscribers are not tuning in to a “free” broadcast channel by choice but are having the cost of the network rammed down their throats whether they ever watch a game or not. As a result, the more populous a state can indeed matter. Unless one thinks if Rutgers was located in New Hampshire and Maryland was located in Delaware they still would have been expansion candidates for the Big Ten. And I respect you enough as a poster to believe you don’t think that.
Agreed. But isn’t a main reason behind the perception of those who believe the ACC is weak more the result of being last in revenue distributions? And if we agree that brand = strength what is the likelihood of the ACC ever challenging the brand powers of both the SEC and the B1G at this point? It's possible, the best the ACC will get is third overall. Which is what I believe the goal should be.
There are reasons why the conference is currently last in finances, as you know, which involve when the TV contract was negotiated, circumstances surrounding the Contract Bowl, negative perception by some of ND’s special arrangement, etc. When it is all said and done, if no more ACC defections, I believe the ACC will be a solid third no question about it by the middle of the next decade. If there are defections, it will depend on who leaves of course.
Cheers,
Neil
Last edited:
