Even Jim Delany doesn't actually believe his NYC - Rutgers bullcrap
I was reading a story today about how the B1G Basketball tournament is back in its "hometown" (Chicago) in 2019 after being out East the past two years, when I came across this quote from Jim Delany:
"It's great to be back in Chicago,” Delany said at men’s basketball media day Thursday. “It's the No. 3 market in the country, No. 1 in the Big Ten."
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/big-ten/2018/10/11/big-ten-mens-basketball-tournament-possible-detroit-after-2022/1600680002/
Umm, excuse me? I thought the whole point of adding execrable Rutgers (aka the State University of Cable Subscribers) was that they were NYC's home team and it would add NYC to the B1G TV market. So isn't NYC "No. 1 in the Big Ten"?
I've never believed this, nor has any rational human being -- but I at least thought Jim Delany believed his own nonsense. I guess he's even more awful than I thought. My world is shattered.
October 11th, 2018 at 12:49 PM ^
That never gets old. (I’m sure Delaney agrees)
October 11th, 2018 at 1:13 PM ^
Neither does this:
October 11th, 2018 at 4:42 PM ^
^Dantonio^
October 11th, 2018 at 12:50 PM ^
I don't think he ever believed the New York market cared about Rutgers, but he was not able to get in there before and now he kind of is. B1G teams are getting 50 million each this year from the network. I like having the tournament in NYC, at least we win there.
October 11th, 2018 at 12:52 PM ^
Indeed; Michigan is undefeated in Big Ten basketball tournament games held east of Indianapolis, Indiana. :)
October 11th, 2018 at 2:24 PM ^
Yeah. Don't people from NYC make fun of New Jersey folks as poor, classless "bridge and tunnel" interlopers into their high-class social system???
October 11th, 2018 at 5:51 PM ^
Eh..not really. Sure, there are bridge and tunnel crowds that we all roll our eyes at, but in the NYC area, most people either head to northern NJ, NY State, or CT, once they have kids and move to the burbs for schooling (and a "relatively" cheaper cost of living). Rule of thumb is, if you work downtown or on the west side of the city, you move to NJ. If you work on east side/midtown, CT and Westchester are more popular options. It's all down to trains and buses. Parts of all those locations, including NJ, are VERY wealthy areas.
October 11th, 2018 at 6:29 PM ^
That’s great until your firm decides to move from Grand Centralish to Hudson Yards...and you live in C
Thats happening to a number of my NY based colleagues
October 11th, 2018 at 8:53 PM ^
Oh, yeah. For sure
Traditionally that's how it plays out with where to live, etc....
October 12th, 2018 at 1:36 AM ^
NJ income > NY income
October 11th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^
Isn't it possible that he believes the NYC market is a big market and a great addition to the B1G footprint but not the number 1 overall market for basketball? I'm not saying I agree, but I don't think this quote makes him a hypocrite.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:02 PM ^
Yes it does make him a hypocrite. He's not referring to basketball markets. It's literally right there in the quote.
"It's the No. 3 market in the country, No. 1 in the Big Ten."
Chicago is the #3 media market in the country, behind #1 NYC and #2 LA. Here's the list.
https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/docs/solutions/measurement/television/2016-2017-nielsen-local-dma-ranks.pdf
He's not referring to "basketball" markets (e.g., passion for basketball) -- if he was, my guess is Indianapolis would be ahead of everyone, along with Louisville or Lexington, then perhaps somewhere in Kansas, etc.
He's referring to media markets, end stop. Chicago is #3.
And my point is that he's gone on & on for years about how adding Rutgers has put the B1G in NYC, but then when making this statement, he doesn't include NYC -- which means he doesn't REALLY believe it's part of the B1G footprint.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:20 PM ^
I see what you're saying now. Taking the quote as worded, it sounds like he forgot to stick to his line about NYC being part of the B1G footprint.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:28 PM ^
I read it how you read it...as in Chicago has the most subscribers in the Big Ten Footprint, not necessarily the biggest TV market. Also, perhaps the largest number of BIG grads. Doesn't seem to be that egregious a statement, rather...just a statement.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:37 PM ^
Thank you!
That was all that I was saying. He has been remarkably disciplined in sticking with his "NYC is part of the B1G" (the city itself -- not just the cable subscribers that can be added to BTN, which is what we all agree was what he was mainly after), yet with the quote, he slipped up by putting NYC outside of the B1G.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^
Delaney sucks but this is trying way too hard. There are a million reasons to hate this guy. This statement doesn't move the needle for me. It's like arguing about whether Ted Kaczynski took improper deductions on his tax return. Uh, what about all that other stuff?
October 11th, 2018 at 5:38 PM ^
Correct....thanks for saving me some typing
October 11th, 2018 at 12:54 PM ^
Well, I don't like Delaney - but that quote doesn't seem crazy to me. Unless the B1G radically changes their membership, Chicago will probably ALWAYS be the "center of gravity" for the conference as a whole.
10%+ of alums from Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, NW, Purdue and Wisconsin live in ChicagoLand. 5%+ of alums from Michigan and MSU. That's 8 of the traditional 10 B1G schools right there. There's a smaller presence of Minnesota, Nebraska, OSU and PSU alums in ChicagoLand, but it's still over 1%.
But increasing the B1G's presence in NYC wasn't a completely dumb idea either. Now, we can argue about the execution. I would have much preferred UConn or Syracuse over Rutgers.
NYC is a huge market, and 5%+ of alums from Michigan, Northwestern and Penn State live in the NYC Metro. And at least 1% of alums from the other 9 B1G schools (x Maryland or Rutgers).
NYC is a good market for the B1G to want to have an increased presence. Again, my issue was more with the execution of that idea than the idea itself.
---------------------
Source for my numbers: https://frankthetank.me/
October 11th, 2018 at 1:17 PM ^
Not my point that NYC has a lot of Michigan grads; that's why I'm glad we regularly play non-conference tournaments there (e.g., at Barclay's in Brooklyn). But so does LA and SF for that matter (see how many UM fans turned out for our NCAA regional there).
My point is Delany has said, repeatedly, that now NYC is part of the regular B1G footprint. Yet his quote shows he really doesn't believe that, as he sees Chicago as the #1 media market in the B1G, even though NYC is much larger.
And to those saying, "maybe he's talking about passion for basketball" --- all truly global cities (like Chicago, LA, SF, NYC) with large populations do not care that much about college sports on a relative basis. I looked up the top 15 markets for ESPN ratings for basketball.
1) Louisville
2) Raleigh-Durham
3) Kansas City
4) Indianapolis
5) High Point-Greensboro
etc --
http://sports.usatoday.com/2017/03/08/louisville-toprated-espn-college-basketball-tv-market-for-15th-straight-year/
He slipped up. That's all I am saying.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:31 PM ^
He may be talking about eyeballs not ratings. 100% of Podunk has fewer eyeballs than 1% of NYC.
Chicago may have more eyeballs watching than NYC, whereby yes, Chicago would have much higher ratings than NYC for Big Ten.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:43 PM ^
...or you could read it the most simple way -- that he was referring to media markets, of which Chicago is definitely #3 in the US. It has been for decades.
If you can show me any data that has Chicago with having #3 total eyeballs in the country for watching college basketball, I would agree with what you are saying.
But I have never seen that, nor have I seen anyone else post it.
October 11th, 2018 at 2:12 PM ^
You're trying really hard to defend your position - admirable, but not really necessary. I'll agree that Delaney, like the rest of us, doesn't consider NYC to be part of the 'B1G footprint'. And probably never did! But adding that market to the TV deals, the B1G can charge a helluva lot more, even if nobody in NYC subscribes.
With that quote, its pretty clear that he's talking about media markets. It also seems clear to me that he's saying Chicago has more BTN subscribers than NYC does. Maybe that's raw numbers, or maybe its per capita - who cares? It's very possible that Chicago is the #1 'media' market via BTN subscribers.
And yes, the BTN will very much have metrics like that easily accessible.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
Maybe it's not that "truly global cities with large population do not care that much about college sports" and instead, in those cities, there are more eyes on a singular TV than in those markets that are listed in the top 5?
I've lived before in the High Point-Greensboro area when I was younger and if you have four sets of eyes on a TV in that area, it's a lot because most of those watching, are watching at home yet in those larger cities, like NYC where I've also lived, there are dozens of sets of eyes on TV in that area because people are usually going out to bars if they are watching.
October 11th, 2018 at 3:26 PM ^
You're looking at this incorrectly. Those markets are listed because they have the highest percentage of TVs/People tuned into a basketball game.
So Louisville might get 50% of the people viewing a game or 300,000 people.
Whereas NYC would only need 4% of TVs tuned in to surpass that number.
Sidebar, shocked to find out Raleigh Durham has 2M people.
October 11th, 2018 at 12:57 PM ^
I don’t get what you’re saying here. Why can’t Chicago be the #1 market even with New York in the fold. The Big Ten has multiple teams around Chicago, it was always going to have a bigger TV market. The reasoning was that they’re adding Rutgers because it’s attached to a huge TV market, not that it was bigger that all the markets we already have.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:15 PM ^
The SEC analogy ---- Dallas and Houston are bigger markets than Atlanta. And adding Texas A&M to the SEC allowed them increased access to both.
But, Atlanta's still the #1 market for the SEC as a whole. And that's unlikely to change anytime soon.
(yes, the SEC's addition was better than the B1G's addition. The SEC's equivalent of Rutgers would have been if they had added North Texas)
October 11th, 2018 at 1:26 PM ^
Yes. This is the correct take.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:12 PM ^
Hot Take: I know we all hate Delany and Rutgers sucks but I also think the Rutgers things has helped us strengthen our foothold in a strong football state so I like it. It has undoubtedly made our team stronger.
See Peppers, Jabrill; Singleton, Drew; Ruiz, Cesar; Hawkins, Brad; Newsome, Grant; Johnson, Ron; Walker, Kareem :( ; JBB; Dwumfour, Michael; Gary, Rashan; and others. Not to mention Partridge.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:39 PM ^
I'm not at all a football savant but why did we need Rutgers to join the Big Ten before we could really start recruiting NJ? Nebraska never needed to be in the Pac-12 to heavily recruit California. No one in the Big Ten ever needed to be in the SEC before it decided to start recruiting down south.
Not arguing your point, but I've always thought that if you wanted to recruit someone, who cares if you regularly play games there? Just go, whether it's in your conferences "footprint" or not.
October 11th, 2018 at 2:07 PM ^
I think you're both right: adding Rutgers surely helped us get a player or three from NJ, as UM would be easier to see on TV for their parents and we'd come out to their home area a couple times over their career to see live.
But as shown by our recent efforts in Georgia, if UM focuses on a talent-rich area, UM can get those people, even 5-stars (e.g., Solomon; Taylor; Sims; Hinton; Jones) even if they're not in your conference. So even if the B1G hadn't added Rutgers, we still could have gotten at least some of those top players from NJ (and, of course, the recruits we didn't get would have been replaced by recruits from elsewhere, e.g., Ohio or Florida).
October 11th, 2018 at 1:13 PM ^
My favorite thing about Rutgers is that they think they got a golden ticket when really all they got was a check in exchange for actual programs getting a chance to raid NJ for recruits with games in state to show themselves off on the reg.
October 11th, 2018 at 2:08 PM ^
Was Rutger getting the top flight in-state before the Big Ten?
At least now they have tens of millions of dollars more per year and a better story to try to sell (come play against the best of the best. vs. come play against Tulane on a Tuesday night)
October 11th, 2018 at 6:00 PM ^
Schiano was the first coach there who ever managed to start getting some of the state's top recruits to stay home. It's why he bombed in the NFL and has been a disaster for Ohio State as a DC: he's not really a good coach at the Xs/Os/Playcalling stuff. He's one of the top 10 best recruiting guys int the country though.
Rutger in the Big 10 currently just exists as a chance for Michigan and Ohio State to get biannual chances to show themselves off to blue chip New Jersey talent and their parents, and they're going to remain that way until 2020-2021 when they start getting their full Big 10 payout and can use that money to build up their facilities and hire a good coach.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:19 PM ^
Not seeing the logic in the argument here.
Pointing out that Chicago is "#1 in the Big Ten" does not undercut the notion that NYC isn't simultaneously an important market that he wanted the conference to also be in. He didn't add Rutgers to make NYC "#1 in the Big Ten" he added Rutgers to add the NYC market. Period. Whether it's 2nd, 3rd... he doesn't care. It's a huge market and he wanted the conference to have a piece of it. NYC may be the #1 overall market in the country, but as to Big Ten related content it's obviously falls behind Chicago. That's reasonable. It doesn't make NYC less valuable.
Delaney creates enough "dur hur Delaney is moron" moments all by himself. We don't have to go manufacturing them.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:23 PM ^
As I answered earlier: he doesn't just say it is No. 1 in the Big Ten (which could be valid, if he was using your reasoning). He said:
"It's the No. 3 market in the country, No. 1 in the Big Ten."
Chicago is the #3 media market in the country, behind #1 NYC and #2 LA. Here's the list.
https://www.nielsen.com/content/dam/corporate/us/en/docs/solutions/measurement/television/2016-2017-nielsen-local-dma-ranks.pdf
He's referring to media markets, end stop. Chicago is #3. NYC is #1. Yet NYC, somehow, is not in the Big Ten, according to Delany, which is different than he's maintained for years.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:30 PM ^
I don't think you understood him, Rob. NYC can simultaneously be the #1 overall media market and not be the #1 market for people who care about the Big Ten. Both are true. But Delaney (rightfully or wrongfully) believes that having Rutgers in the Big Ten gives the Big ten access to the NYC market. It may not tip the scales and make NYC the #1 Big Ten media market but as other posters have shared, at least it gives them some access to the market.
TLDR - your analysis is flawed.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:38 PM ^
I think you're inferring just as much as I am. Just the opposite way.
Look, given what we know - specifically that he has always maintained that the Big Ten is now "in New York" - I have to believe that his quote was meant to convey that Chicago has the largest viewership as it relates to conference content. No surprise if true.
To me, that's a much more plausible inference than "he just admitted that New York isn't in the Big Ten!!!"
October 11th, 2018 at 3:25 PM ^
Dude, just stop doubling down on your asinine post already. Rutgers brought the Big Ten everything it was meant to... whether you think it was worth the Big Ten selling their soul is a separate issue.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:25 PM ^
Yeah except that isn't the point. Adding Rutgers wasn't about ratings, which is the focus of the this comment, but adding cable subscribers. Rutgers has been the reason for increased cable subscribers in NYC and that is what drives funds.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:29 PM ^
I don't think adding Rutgers for "Rutgers" was ever the goal, but it was an attempt to get Cablevision/Comcast/Time Warner/Verizon FiOS/whatever to include BTN on the cable packages in the tri-state area. It didn't seem to work, but there are a TON of Big 10 fans out east and so I can see the point.
Honestly, since the conference expanded with Nebraska they've made a number of dumb decisions about trying to expand a footprint that doesn't need it, but trying to get more money out of NYC is at least somewhat defensible.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:29 PM ^
I don't agree with the notion that Chicago is the B1G's biggest market. The Big Ten has always had a big footprint in New York, even before Penn State joined the conference. Rutgers was never going to be a stand-alone objective. It just fits into an already established conference fan base. This gets proven every time there is something like the B1G basketball tournament in the City.
Look at this data. It's a bit old, but it shows Michigan has more alums in NYC than Chicago.
https://www.landgrantholyland.com/2014/5/7/5690888/where-do-big-ten-gra…
And that Rutgers brings 100,000 alums to the NYC market (which is less than half, BTW). I suspect that today the number of B1G alums in NYC is roughly the same as Chicago.
Anyway you look at it 200,000+ alums in the NYC area for the B1G is a big deal.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:42 PM ^
I find those numbers interesting. I would have never guessed that OSU had more alums in NYC than Chicago.
I don't think Colorado would be interested in the B1G, but Denver's an interesting market.
When I lived in Detroit, there were tons of U-M and MSU alums, but few other B1G alums. The lack of diversity was actually depressing given Detroit's still the 2nd biggest Midwest market. It's hard to get outsiders to consider moving to Detroit.
When I lived in Cincinnati, there were lots of OSU alums and a fair amount of IU, U-M and Purdue alums. But few other B1G alums.
But Denver: I basically see every B1G school well-represented except RU and Maryland (even then, my work neighbor is a Terrapin). B1G folk are everywhere.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:35 PM ^
I don't like the guy either but this really isn't crazy. Chicago is probably no more than a 4-5 hour drive from every school in the Big Ten that isn't Nebraska, Maryland or Rutgers. Chicago is swarming with Big Ten fans. There are of course fans of other conferences there, but you won't see FSU, USC, Alabama or Texas fans in Chicago like you'll see Michigan, OSU, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc. Chicago is quite literally in the heart of Big Ten country, and its a logical destination for a lot of grads of Big Ten schools to flock to.
Sure, you've got a lot of Big Ten fans in NY, but you've got fans of EVERYWHERE in NY. ACC fans, Big Ten, SEC, everyone. Because everyone comes to NY. Out west, you've got Big Ten fans for sure, but Pac-12 fans are by far the most prevalent.
So I think Chicago is the biggest Big Ten market. Delaney isn't all that crazy for thinking so, either.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:37 PM ^
Now that we're back in Chicago, can we schedule our tournament the final weekend of the regular season like every other power basketball conference?
October 11th, 2018 at 1:42 PM ^
Yesterday, on a Reddit post asking "Is Rutgers the worst Power-5 team in the country?", a Michigan fan actually stated they'd kick Michigan out of the Big Ten before they'd kick Rutgers out. 
October 11th, 2018 at 4:48 PM ^
If you had asked me right up until the moment I saw this, I would have not believed anyone could honestly think that the Big Ten would ever ditch one of its premiere members in favor of Rutgers. That said, here we are - someone said it and they should be ashamed, extremely ashamed.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
Jesus christ, it's been 4 years. Just let it go already.
October 11th, 2018 at 1:48 PM ^
Outrage culture is outraged again.
What’s he supposed to say? How disappointed he is to slum it in Chicago? Grow up.