Chait's take on Expansion

In other words, as a profit-making mechanism, this is essentially a scam. It relies on an opaque pricing mechanism (bundled cable television) forcing people to pay for a product they don’t want. Right now, it’s a highly lucrative scam. But bundled cable television pricing is not going to last forever, and possibly not very long at all. There is already a revolution in video content under way that is going to render the cable television bundle model obsolete. When that revolution has finished, the Big Ten will realize it pulled apart its entire identity to grab a profit stream that has disappeared.

And here is the key - cable subscription fees won't last forever, and when they are gone we're still going to be stuck with Maryland and Rutgers.

While I don't necessarily disagree, it's funny how he doesn't deride Notre Dame dropping B1G play to expand ACC and Pac 12 participation for the same reasons, only much more selfishly and greedily. Everybody basically applauded their move, while more is somehow expected of the B1G.

How about a mod makes one thread for expansion. That way the "end of worlders" can go in there and hold hands or whatever it is that end of worlders do to console themselves, and the rest of us can move on without seeing ten threads saying the same thing.

"Like the Big 12, the ACC learned that taking a bunch of fan bases that reside in the same general region and declaring that they should start caring passionately about beating each other is not enough to make it happen."

This is one of the things that worries me about this on an admittedly sentimental level. I do understand the money angle, the BTN subscription fees being very attractive in these markets where Rutgers and Maryland reside, the desire expressed by these schools to have solvent athletic departments and the like, but will Rutgers or Maryland ever develop a real rivalry in a relatively insular Big Ten? I see ours as a conference where it might be difficult to invent a rivalry, as there are some long-standing, storied ones. The revenue estimates are enough for the conference that this may not matter, but to some extent, it does to me. Hard to explain precisely. In a decade or two, will we be revisiting this week and wondering what has been gained by the conference in an intangible (i.e., not financial) sense? Part of me fears the answer may be less than thrilling. 

Because I agree 110% with him on all things college football, and I agree with close to 0% of his political writings, which is his basic "day job."  It's actually a wonderful feeling to find agreement with someone who comes from what you normally associate as the opposition.  And he really is a very fine writer, no matter what the sentiment.

In this story, Jon walked right up to the edge of a very large question and then never really dealt with it.  Why, exactly, do colleges continue the need to feel ever more pressed for more money?  Assuredly, every B1G athletic director feels an urgent need to raise more money.  To even do whacky, crazy, extravagant things, to raise more money.  Bring in Maryland and Rutgers and make the Conference 14 teams!  Why?

It's a little like political fundraising, isn't it?  (To pick an analogy close to Chait, without going into a political argument.)  Politicians, most of them, HATE political fundraising but they do it because it is part of the job.  And it is part of the job because it is necessary, to compete.  The competition is regulated, but only partly, and only in certain limited ways.  You can never have too much cash, and you will always find a way to spend it.  The more you have, the better you can compete.  You could place limits on the fundraising and spending, but it isn't easy; when there are separate competing interests, money will usually find a way to do its work.

As always, the interesting comparison is the NFL.  The NFL is almost pure socialism compared to the wild west capitalism of collegiate football.  The owners of NFL franchises are very much geared to the financial success of the league.  The NFL has one contract with apparel vendors, one system of rigid salary capping, one entry draft (with the poor getting richer and the rich getting poorer), and even the schedules get re-jiggered every year so that bad teams don't have to play too many great teams, within the limits of geographical divisions.  Teams share equally in all manner of league revenue, and even the tiniest details from player discipline, to approval as to how uniforms are to be worn, are league prerogatives.  One commissioner, ruling all of the franchises.

Just imagine; the Lions trying to raise donations in order to build better facilities so as to attract a better class of players in 2014.

In the case of trying to expand the revenue base of the Big Ten Network, Michigan is not getting a leg up on Ohio State.  But all of the Big Ten schools might be getting a leg up on Oklahoma, or Tennessee, Syracuse.  Maybe, just maybe, the evil at the root of all of this expansion mania, is the balkanization of tv contracts broken up by leagues and/or teams.  As a consumer, I like the Big Ten Network.  It's fun and interesting.  But when it leads to the destruction of Michigan playing Wisconsin, or the ruination of the final season game against Ohio State, I will have a very hard time supporting the BTN.

Saban's come out in support of superconferences, and with conferences reaching 14 teams (and possibly 16 soon), does this mean we're going to play more than 12 regular season games?

Is that even on the table?  Like a 16 game model?

Lots of faulty logic here

1) Cable might become obsolete: Yes, but it doesn't change the fact that the two schools are the dominant in state institutions of populous states. Whatever medium media morphs into in the future, that is a built in advantage that cannot be replicated by, say, Pitt, Syracuse, or NC State

2) B1G will fail like the B12 failed: WTF? The B12 failed because Texas acted like a spoiled ahole and the B12 payouts were pitiful. In case you haven't noticed, the B1G is equal, and the payouts are peerless.

3) B1G will fail like the ACC: The ACC is a hugely flawed conference to begin with. 4 schools in North Carolina? Are you kidding me? A basketball league in a land driven by football? And Rutgers/Maryland >>>> Pitt/Syracuse long term.

4) At some point you don't need more money: Tell that to the SEC. Long term the B1G's rival is them, and they ain't slowing down, especially with the SEC network coming soon. Facilities need constant updating, coaches pays get higher, and Michigan will build a new hockey arena sooner or later.

He is right though, in that the tradition loss is sad. 

I completely agree with Chait. But, the only reason I support this expansion is because they're large flagship universities in densely populated and wealthy states with good academics and the potential for much better athletics as well. As crazy as these expansions are becoming, I'm almost of the mindset that we should go after the best schools no matter where they are, but I can understand the "upside" argument with this deal. Where I especially agree with Chait is with whether framing the issue in these terms as if it's a game of Risk is right. I don't think it's right at all. I think as far as the business model is concerned, I think we should be able to adjust. I don't see us going to a-la-carte cable or the content providers relinquishing their bargaining power anytime soon, but the cable business will be much different 10 years from now. 

What’s amazing about the college conference expansion fad is that the conferences are not even doing the normal dumb thing that every business does, which is to try to copy success. They are trying to copy failure. Everybody is racing to turn their successful product into the next New Coke.