Football Display Case
rundown of Michigan's riser
needs moar usage
so much for that
This list is completely arbitrary and not a genuine analysis of the relative merits of state fossils.
will be michigan's highest pick in a while
money has to go somewhere
I am only motivated by people who have no opinion about me.
the just released schedules were a flat-out statement that the B10 doesn't believe SOS will matter in playoff selection
but I thought that draft was supposed to be incredibly loaded?
If you're gonna go please be in the first round.
another delightful side effect of a 14 team conference
thoughtful piece from Jacobi on middle finger lady
Boston College and ND are rivals insofar as they are catholic schools. ND has bigger rivalries with USC, Michigan, MSU, Purdue and maybe even Navy.
I don't think adding BC either should or will entice ND more than say money, and being the a "conference-less" team would.
If ND is intent on playing service academies, catholic schools, UM, and USC ... let them ... they'll probably be forced to see the light soon enough.
An awful idea. People from Boston, unless you went there, hate BC. Their stadium is an absolute joke - they pipe extra drum music because their band is too soft to reach the other end of the stadium. Their entire fan base is comprised of lame fair weather fans.
And BC would never, ever leave Hockey East.
Just a horrible idea.
I can't promise I'll try, but I'll try to try.
Without commenting on their deficiencies, I don't think the Hockey East issue is a problem. The Big Ten doesn't necessarily intend on forming a hockey conference in the near future. In fact, they may well not want to go to the expense of forming a hockey conference with only six teams.
What the Big Ten is interested in is having more games between Big Ten schools so that they can broadcast them on the Big Ten Network. And all that would likely mean is that BC would have to play non-conference games against Michigan, MSU, OSU, Wisconsin, and/or Minnesota. This isn't such a big deal if they play a full series against OSU and single games against everyone else to avoid overloading their schedule.
Also possible is a system in which the Big Ten Hockey schools stay in their conferences but play each other so that an honorary Big Ten Championship is awarded, even though it would mean nothing to the NCAA (like the GLI and other midseason tourneys, only based on standings over the course of a season rather than a brief tournament in the middle of the season).
I would take them over Rutgers in a heart beat. As far as the Big East teams we are looking at goes me thinks:
I wish West Virginia had any resemblance of academic standards so we could invite them in. I would love to see RR going against them every year.
When you reach the end of your rope tie a knot and hold on...
Speaking of no academic standards, I think that once the chain reaction fallout happens after the Big Ten moves that WVU goes to the SEC.
Syracuse '03, Michigan G'05
Space bitches, space.
I like the idea of adding BC, Pitt, UConn, Syracuse, and one other. That could be ND, Missouri, or whoever else. That would make for a very, very big market while adding good football/basketball/academic programs to the conference.
I would rather not take the entire Big East personally, that will only dilute the conference. If The Big Ten is seriously considering expanding to 16 teams (not just a ploy or ruse to scare ND into joining as mentioned before) then Pitt is the clear choice from the East. Texas, Nebraska, and Texas A&M-or-Missouri and finally Nortre Dame would be fill the remaining spots to solidify the Conference.
Reasons for Pitt
1. Great Medical school (better than any other in the big east), will add to Big Ten Prestige
2. Very good Basket Ball team
3. Location (rival for Penn St.) Pittsburgh loves football, get them on the big ten band wagon, Media $$$
Why Texas A&M
1. Would help draw in Texas(Media$$$) and possibly Nebraska($), that also cuts down on some of the travel time for the three.
2. dramatically increases the strength of the Big Ten in just about every sport
3. See Number 2, i'm sick of hearing about the SEC
...that this was discussed on the UCONN to Big 10 thread and that's a great place to continue the conversation.
LSA '89 - MBB Natl Champions, Big 10/Rose Bowl Champions | @MGoShoe
BC was in the Big East until 2005, when they switched to the ACC. It's unlikely that they'd switch again to yet another conference, which would make it three different conference affiliations within a decade. That's something that a Mountain West school might do, but I think the Jesuits who run BC are bit more conservative.
BC was just added in the recent ACC expansion if you remember correctly, there is no way they are going to move this soon again
Today in the town of Ann Arbor, a savior has been hired. And His name shall be called Hoke
Seriously, everyone is throwing out the most random schools without even any rational thought.
- Nebraska adds less to the Big Ten Network than even Upstate NY does, much less NYC and has no rivals among any Big 10 members.
- UConn isn't an AAU member, isn't from a contiguous state, has no rivals among even the candidates except for with SU, and is lower-ranked academically than most other candidates.
- Nobody even cares about BC in Boston. BC has not been a net gain for the ACC, there is zero-chance that the Big Ten will make the same mistake.
- Texas isn't going anywhere since the Texas state legislature will never let them leave Texas A&M and Texas Tech behind, and the Big 10 won't add Texas A&M since they won't add anything that Texas doesn't, cutting in half the financial gains Texas brings. That and the Big 12 already does not split revenue equally and Texas brings in the largest share in the conference.
This goes here:
The sideline at top is BC.
That's an embarrassingly pathetic turnout for both schools combined, let alone BC.
Is that the Jaguars logo in the top of the bleachers?
in Tampa, Florida.
that helps explain the turnout, but still...
edit: according to ESPN attendance was just under 54,000. If there was a big 10 championship and they played it in Siberia we could probably still come up with 54,000 UM fans that would go.
I'm pretty sure it's Jacksonville.
The ACC evidently banked on FSU and Miami reaching the title game regularly when it chose that location. When non-Florida teams make the game, attendance is laughably bad.
The game was held at Raymond James.
The above photo is actually from the 2007 ACC championship game, which also featured BC and VT, and was held in Jacksonville Municipal Stadium (the site moved to Tampa the following year). The paid attendance was 53,212.
i saw the jaguar so i was a bit confused. thanks for clearing that up :)
...this should have given you a clue that it wasn't Raymond James Stadium:
Shiver me timbers, matey.
But it's a tough proposition. I expect somebody will re-suggest Marshall or Louisville as sure-fire candidates before the day is out.
I can't speak to much of this, but as someone from upstate NY and living in NYC, adding Syracuse (especially if the football program went beyond 1-3 wins/year) would be huge in both markets, and even upstate is FAR from insignificant (Syracuse, Buffalo, Albany, etc.). Rutgers, on the other hand, has no profile in any sport in NY/C.
BTN is not on most cable packages here (it's available, but not a part of any but the biggest sports packages), and adding Syracuse stands a real chance of changing that.
Edit: you covered a decent portion of this below.
Taking a look at Nebraska, which Brian cited in his post today:
Total population of the State of Nebraska: 1,800,000
Media Markets by household within ~2 hours of Syracuse:
Just those four cities (neglecting any other Upstate NY city like Utica, Binghamton, etc. or even New York City) has 1,960,000 TV households. More than the population of the entire state of Nebraska.
As an apples-to-apples comparison, according to the latest census info I could find, Nebraska has a total of 695,000 households. Hell, just Syracuse has over half the households as compared to the entire state of Nebraska.
So someone please tell me how Nebraska is a reasonable candidate?
edit: Nebraska is also the lowest rated academic school compared to any of the candidates mentioned, even the non-sensical ones. (ND, Pitt, SU, RU, UConn, BC, KU, UT, TAMU, Mizzou)
I'm no expert, so keep in mind that I'm just throwing this out there as a possibility and not a definitive statement, but...
Would the people making the projections believe that, despite the smaller population, Nebraska can still bring significantly more eyeballs to the network? Would the bump in TV ratings and ensuing increase in advertising revenue trump Syracuse's advantage in cable subscription revenue?
has a large, extended fanbase of people that live outside of the state. Not only that, Nebraska football is the only sports team worth half a shit in the state. New York has other, non-Big 10 universities to compete with, not to mention the Bills, Jets, & Giants. Take it from someone who used to live in Nebraska: EVERYONE IN THE STATE WORSHIPS HUSKER FOOTBALL.
Edit: There are many other reasons. Nebraska, I would be willing to wager, has more people watching their games than Syracuse, Rutgers & Pittsburgh. Nebraska played in the Big 12 Championship last season. They have sold out every game since 1962. Syracuse & Rutgers probably didn't even sell out all of their home games last season.
I'll agree they may not have as strong a resume as some of the other candidates, but the only schools that have been discussed that would add more prestige to Big 10 football are Texas and Notre Dame. To dismiss them as undeserving of joining the Big 10, to me, means that you think people actually give a shit about the Big East.
Frank the Tank's guest poster sez: Nebraska is surprisingly valuable.
Advertising actually brings in more revenue for the BTN than cable subscription fees. Taking team popularity in consideration for ratings/advertising rate purposes, he determined that Nebraska would be more valuable than every school except Texas and Rutgers if they bring in NYC (which is a big if). Yes, that includes Notre Dame.
Thanks for the link. For fairness, here's his estimates below (though if there's anyone that's thrown every dart at the board it's him), and I think the Rutgers estimate is the biggest reason to call 'bullshit' (compare to ND especially...)
CANDIDATES TOTAL ADDED REVENUE ESTIMATE
Rutgers WITH NYC $67,798,609
Boston College $48,382,692
Notre Dame $47,629,255
Iowa State $31,831,077
Syracuse WITH NYC $65,874,573
Not BS. I'm actually surprised it's not larger. NYC has twice the viewership of Chicago. Rutgers (without NYC) guarantees all of NJ which is approximately half of NYC (#1 nationally) and half of Philly (#4 nationally) viewership. I know the Rutgers estimate you quoted did not count a South Jersey contribution. Don't know about the BS in association with the ND estimate however if there is any BS with the RU estimate it is that it should be larger!
Nobody cares about Rutgers in Piscataway much less anywhere else. RU can't even outnumber SU fans in their own building, they're no guarantee to add the NYC market as a whole.
Not true. RU generates more athletic revenue than Syracuse, or Missouri or Pittsburgh (NCAA data). This expansion is about TV markets not quality of athletic programs. Right now nobody in the Northeast much less the NY Metro area cares about Michigan or the Big 10. Changing THAT perception is what this expansion is all about.
I'm interested to see your source since as a private university, I have never seen Syracuse report overall athletic department revenue.
Sorry been busy and this board is over nevertheless - The figures come from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education. Each year, the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act requires schools to report their overall revenues to the Department of Education.
I don't see the upside of them joining. I hope they stay in the ACC.
I don't like it. They are good academically, but their sports aren't that good. I would much rather have Pitt, ND, Texas, or Cuse.
One more thing to keep beating the dead horse.
All four cable companies that currently serve Nebraska: Cox, Time Warner, Cable One, and Charter, already carry the Big Ten Network.
That adds $0 in additional TV sets to 60% of the BTN revenue.
Question: Is that "carried on basic cable"? Or "carried on a sports package subscribers can purchase"? Because I seem to remember all the cable companies being extremely resistant to adding the network to the basic package outside the footprint, so switching from money from the few people that purchase the sports package to money from everyone with cable would make a big difference.
From looking at their individual websites, it looks as though it's on basic cable on all four.
That's interesting, because I decided to check Lincoln's Time Warner site and couldn't find it in the listings.
I then went to Big Ten Network's Channel Finder, entered in Zip Code 68508 and it said that BTN was not available in Lincoln for either Time Warner or Charter.
Now, that's just the city that where the university is actually located and just two of the four cable networks you mentioned, but I have a feeling further research would find similar results. May want to back off that claim a little bit.
EDIT: Just looked up Omaha. Not available on Qwest. It is available on Cox, but not on basic.
Yes you are correct but where are there more subscribers, Nebraska or New York and New Jersey?
For beginners... ...BC is not an AAU member and Massachusetts does not boarder Pennsylvania.
The Big 10 Network is about market size, household subscriptions and double-dipping advertising... ...and that's not about Nebraska. It's about #1 NYC (Rutgers and Syracuse since both are need to keep the ACC out of NYC), it's about solidifying #21 St. Louis and colonizing #32 KC (Missouri), and it's about keeping the ACC out of #23 Pittsburgh (Pittsburgh.) All 4 are AAU (that is very important to current constituency) and all 4 are in states that boarder current member's states. Debate the sixteenth.