Are TV sets the only reason for RU and MD?
I started this as a response to the diary by maizeonblueaction, but I figured it would get more play on the main board. I'm interested to find if anyone cares to defend the B1G acquisition of Rutgers and Maryland. I feel like cable contracts with the BTN are not the end all, be all factor as to whether our forray out east will be successful.
I'm not as sold on BTN bound TV sets being the sole reason to branch into populace areas. Sure, that's a huge focal point for now, but it's not the only thing. When speculating on decisions, there is a general trend to underestimate those who come to said decisions. It's easy to poke holes in most arguments, as there are very few 'no-brainers'. Sure, there are stupid people everywhere, but by and large the people who have cash to back up their decisions have proven themselves in some facet. It is presumptuous to assume that a rag tag group of message board patrons have out-thunk a group of people who make insane amounts of money to assure that even more insane amounts of money and power are retained by said group.
I can list a few other items that should not be overlooked in the event that TV channels are no longer bundled. These are listed from the perspective of CFB, but can also apply to other sports in some cases...
1. Recruiting. This is not to be undersold. Higher population equates to more talent that can be swayed into staying home. In this instance, the Nebraska coup was a net drain on the conference. Sure, Nebraska will hold onto some of their recruiting territories in Texas and out west, but most of their kids will need to be cherry picked from the midwest. We have one more heavyweight eating from the same piece of pie. Conversely, New Jersey and Maryland are hot states for football recruiting. Though the schools may be lightweights, they've brought more pie to our party! In a way, bringing them into the fold helps mitigate our fat uncle Nebraska. ( I swear this is the last time I analogize high school recruits to pie. It's creepy.)
2. Word of mouth. Even if we can't edge our way into the TV sets of the entirety of Baltimore, DC, and the greater NYC area, getting our foot in the door creates a starting point. If mouths start talking about the Big 10 in those areas, they have the power to spread our gospel like a targeted plague. You can even speculate that if Rutgers and Maryland benefit from the status of being in the Big 10, they will be able to raise the profile of their teams and compete on a national stage, bringing even more relevancy.
3. Lamestream media coverage. I despise the term. But the mainstream media will parrot what it thinks is best for self preservation. When ESPN sees that the large demographics are now more tuned into B1G interests, it will cater to that demand. More curious eyes means more exposure. More exposure means more curious eyes. I guess this dovetails with number 2 on my list, but it stands as a potential point. The antithesis of this is the NHL. It is, by all means, a great product. But Bettman and lockouts and unwarranted expansion that dilutes the product caused a lot of casual fans to turn away. Now, ESPN couldn't take enough pay to touch the league, which threatens to further nichify the sport.
4. Access to coastline. In the event of Civil War II breaking out between the B1G and the SEC, any military person recognizes the basic need of coastline. Nobody likes to be landlocked. Laugh now, but crazier shit has happened.
2 and 3 have issues. I just moved to the East Coast, and I can't find anyone here who cares about college sports outside of MAYBE their alma mater. Converting the college sports fans out here to B1G isn't impactful if there aren't that many to convert.
The REAL reason for expansion? BTN generates $27 million per new school brought in.
and many people I know enjoy college football. Sure there are few big fans of college sports but that's a symptom caused by the local teams, not east coast sport culture itself. Unforrtunately for them they've been handed shitty local teams, but with an increased quality of product (I specifically speculate that Rutgers will vastly improve as a football program in the next decade) the same fervor that is seen for professional football and baseball will find it's way to college.
Nope. People can watch on devices other than TV sets. I think most people think the "sole reason" for RU and MD is money, not something about TV sets. This is funny because you are pointing out that people "underestimate decision makers" and simultaneously underestimating/straw manning those in opposition to RU/MD.
Plus, very few people have ever lost money by underestimating "decision makers."
Can there really be a fact about how long a shoreline is? My brain is getting sore.
And Fact; it may have added but we already had an east coast port in Philadelphia (PSU). /s
And wolv: Isn’t it lame how native CA’s contest you if you point that out? I can’t believe the responses I get: “…well it’s not really salt water, …or a large ocean is it?”
What. The. Fuck.
Jim Delany is in control of an army of unpaid, highly athletic, tactically trained athletes. All he needs is a reason. Tell me this man hasn't thought of a hostile takeover at some point in his life. It would be silly not to consider it a plausibility.
You misunderstood my what-the-fuckness. It was more like a mind blowing, everything just became so much clearer what-the-fuck.
Zoolander comes to mind.
BTN exists out here already, and I'm in Connecticut. I'm pretty sure it's widespread in Jersey, Buttgers notwithstanding.
I did an exhaustive trade study between TV/internet providers when I moved out here almost two months ago, and at least half of them have BTN on their most basic packages. The rest have it on the package a single step above barebones.
I meant "half the cable companies," not "half the subscribers."
Isn't that right, RCN!
The NHL has gone out of its way to increase media coverage in areas where hockey hasn't traditionally been. This is why you have the Phoenix Coyotes still in Phoenix belonging to the NHL - all attempts to buy and move the team elsewhere have been blocked, where the club would make more money but decrease media visibility and geographical coverage. This argument runs slightly counter to your 'visibility' assertions.
It does, but there are subtleties that separate the two situations. The NHL already had a largely national footprint. Moving to a desert seemed to be inorganic. There is good high school football being played on the east coast. But your point is valid. Making sweeping assessments of the situation makes you (me) sound unversed on the topic. I am, after all, largely unversed on the topic.
I think you have something with #4 there.
4. The night is dark and full of terrors
There's only two possible reasons, cable subscribers and a potential toehold into the south for acquiring the heart of the ACC (UNC and UVa/Ga. Tech). Cable subsciribers is obviously about immediate financial gain. The "toehold" theory is abou Delaney's much publicized thoughts on changing demographics. I don't think either reason is worth it/will pay off and the decision was incredibly short cited, but I'm not paid the big bucks to make those decisions.
After being alerted to the possibility, I'm also unwilling to dismiss your reason #4.
The way I put it on my blog a little while back was similar; it doesn't have to necessarily be a bridge to the south, but what it does for the B1G is keep the eastward avenues open whether it be north or south. Remember there was a Delany quote, and Barry Alvarez too, obliquely referencing a need to keep Penn State happy. (Delany talked about Rutgers and Maryland "solidifying the expansion we've done in the past," and obviously wasn't referencing Nebraska.)
A little fear that PSU might have been quietly mulling departure (more than likely, to the ACC) is understandably disquieting for the B1G. However unlikely it ever was, it would've blocked the B1G from ever accessing the eastern seaboard if the ACC had PSU, Pitt, Cuse, Maryland, and BC. Rutgers and UConn wouldn't have been B1G options. Now the B1G can, if it ever wants to, explore all up and down the coast.
On a totally separate note, recruiting in NJ and MD is nice, but the presidents don't give a shit.
#5 - to hell with ND. By stealing Rutgers the Big East loses another member and possibly hastens its' demise. Other than football all the other major ND sports participated in the Big East. By making the Big East unstable, it puts ND on shaky ground. Mission accomplished - with the theft of Maryland from the ACC, the ACC went and poached the Big East which eventually lead to the bball only schools leaving. ND was forced to partner with the ACC.
#6 - Cover the Big Ten's bases should there a come a day when conferences expand to 16 teams. Should there eventually be conferences comprised of 16 teams, the two most likely places for the Big Ten to expand would be to the south (stealing ACC schools) or to the west (stealing Big 12 schools). I'd guess the south is the more desirable location (more fertile recruiting grounds and larger TV markets, at least more than what the schools in Kansas and Oklahoma can offer). Should the need arise to expand to 16 teams, the Big Ten has already made a small step into the south with the addition of Maryland.
When Rutgers and Maryland joined the conference back in November, the purely hypothetical figure that was discussed in the unlikely scenario that the BTN should get into all 15 million available homes in the DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia and NYC belt was about $200 million to the conference. That would also take into account a subscription fee which would be as high as $1.25 per month.
Obviously, it likely will not be in 100% of homes in those markets, especially to start, possibly because there is little about Rutgers, for example, that says, "I must write my cable provider and demand the Big Ten Network." Even if it is a $100 million windfall, it's still enough to sustain the projected payouts for schools literally zooming towards the $40 million mark over the next few years between this and the renegotiation of the ESPN contract.
In time, I imagine that the increased exposure and the benefit of enhanced resources probably changes Maryland and Rutgers athletics for the better, but it will take several years to come to fruition, I would think.
I agree with your point, and that was likely a very large factor in making the call. But in addition to that, I feel like there were other reasons for the expansion that are more geared for the long run. If the TV revenue drops, there is still a net gain in regards to exposure and product potential with recruiting. Both of those won't happen overnight, but once fully assimilated, we may look at both new schools as important parts of the conference.
I'd both hope and assume that the powers that be have a pretty good projection as to when bundling will be gone. That's why I think there is also a hidden value beyond the BTN. It'd be foolish to stake the conference's claim on the proliferation of the BTN. I think that was the immediate payoff, but the added population is still a bonus without the BTN, in terms of national exposure. Especially if one of the new teams bottles lightning and gets good for a decade or so. Also, recruiting.
That is a more concise version of my initial argument.
I've been thinking about something ever since Brian started talking about the death of the current cable model and I'd like to hear some feedback on it. You seem to have a good handle on the bundling thing, so I will pose my question to you.
A ton of the current TV stations are owned by a much smaller number of parent companies. Isn't it in those companies best interest to continue bundling so that their shitty channels get picked up along with their big channels?
Even if cable bundling in the current model goes away, don't you think that these parent companies will continue bundling in some manner when the model changes? This way they can ensure that lesser watched channels are viable and produce for them?
I'll use Viacom as an example, which according to wikipedia owns approximately 170 channels. So for instance, there will be all these parents who are going to be ordering MTV for their teenage kids, wouldn't it make sense for Viacom to force you to bundle that with BET and VH1 (because who the hell will get VH1 all by itself??) to get more subscribers to those channels?
Thanks I'll hang up and listen.
From what I understand, there would have to be some pressure applied to the parent companies in order to separate the channels. Google "a la carte cable" and you will get a variety of opinions. It's not a consumer slam dunk by any means. There's better content out there than I can explain on here.
This is my assumption as well. Barring some kind of federal law breaking them up, I think the big media companies are going to fight tooth and nail to keep bundling around.
For those who think the BTN is a flash in the pan, note that it's 49% owned by FOX. FOX isn't going to let that investment go to rot.
I'm no expert but from what I have read when I've dabbled in the topic, the TV networks would just raise the price of each channel if you'd get ala carte.
I used to advocate ala carte but I'm fine with bundling, although, as I said before, I am quite confused how the provider determines which networks get bundled. For instance, I live in Maryland, right outside DC, and I get Big Ten Network on basic tier FiOS. However, FSC, WGN, NFL Network, and NHL Network are not on basic tier.
I don't know if this was fact or conjecture. Anyone know the deal with this?
The Big 10 is never going to be on the basic tier in NYC or Washington DC, so the upside is limited.I'm not sure why you assume this. FOX has the muscle to get in on there.
That's the short, crude way of looking at it, no doubt, but this wasn't like adding Nebraska, where you're bringing in another traditional powerhouse program with an insane fan/cult following that immediately boosts that competition amongst your football teams. This is about access to NYC/NJ and DC. And these new markets mean more money. Okay, yeah, Nebraska and its fans were a new market, but come on. The Big Ten added Nebraska because its frickin Nebraska. That's all they needed to know. But I guess that can also be equated to getting more money at the end of the day, so really, what do I know?
As far as Maryland/Rutgers go, if Delaney wanted better competition/additional exposure for the teams already in the conference, he could have looked elsewhere and found better options. This was a new markets/money move, because neither of those schools move the needle nationally on the field of play.
It is presumptuous to assume that a rag tag group of message board patrons have out-thunk a group of people who make insane amounts of money to assure that even more insane amounts of money and power are retained by said group.
1) Who are you calling "rag tag" ?
2) Just because it is presumptuous doesn't mean it can't be true.
Yes.
Speaking of which, FiOS already includes BTN on my system in Maryland, at no extra charge. You'll have to pay extra for Fox Soccer, NFL Network, and NHL Network, but enjoy BTN on basic tier.
I don't know how it works, and I'm not complaining, BTN has some good stuff. :)
I am not looking forward to having to pay for a ticket to watch one of these shit teams every season as part of the season ticket package. All it means is less Penn St, less Wisconsin, and less Nebraska. If the conference added Notre Dame, Oklahoma, or Texas, I would be all for it because losing the opportunity to play the 3 previously mentioned teams on a regular basis would be compensated with the 3 new teams mentioned. I am growing frustrated with all of the shit teams already in the Big 10 and the conference shouldn't expand unless it can get new members that increase the competitiveness and can produce matchups with national significance. Get off of my lawn!!!
For football, it's decent, but for basketball, bringing the New York and DC metro areas into play is huge. If basketball is done in the same divisions as football, Michigan will benefit greatly from the additions.