Maize_in_Spartyland

September 20th, 2011 at 8:38 PM ^

I honestly don't see the Big Ten adding anyone, nor do they need to, to be honest. With the most lucrative television contract in college sports, the Big Ten can afford to be picky. If other schools don't add anything or have major detractors (like separate television contracts), why bother adding them?

Also, going to 14 teams creates problems in some conferences, like the PAC-12. It would involve splitting up a traditional rivalry into two divisions. 16 is much easier to work with, but how much is too much? That was the argument with Big East basketball lately (I'm looking at you, Dick Vitale) - How can you claim to be a conference when you don't play everyone (or in football, don't play everyone in every 3 or so years).

Zone Left

September 20th, 2011 at 8:58 PM ^

200 Million / 12 > 250 Million / 16

It's not about the biggest number, it's about the biggest number per team. Texas A&M and Missouri probably gets the SEC a bigger per team contract than the the Big 10, but that's really because of Texas A&M. I think Missouri is dillutive. I think the only plausible teams the Big 10 could add that aren't dillutive are Texas, Oklahoma, and Notre Dame. Texas won't share, so they're out. If the Presidents didn't care about academics, Oklahoma (even with OK State) would be a great addition athletically, but they do care, so they're out. Notre Dame (assuming they share their TV deal) is additive even with a community college, but they're got reasons to wait themselves.

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 9:32 PM ^

I think we're talking about numbers more in the $350-$500 million range for superconferences, honestly, especially with the inflation over previous TV deals. So the other conferences will get a bigger per team share as well as a bigger total deal.

I don't think Mizzou is dilutive at all, they just add much less. But they still add a couple of large TV markets. Sure, there's no homerun for us outside of Notre Dame. But it wouldn't hurt to nab a Missouri just to keep the SEC out of markets like St. Louis and KC.

Tacopants

September 21st, 2011 at 12:02 AM ^

Will Missouri add $25 million per year in TV revenue?  Signs point to no, so they'd be a naturally dilutive force.

I think your $350-500 million deal is ridiculous.  The revamped Big 12 had a new $155 million/year last year.  That's 15.5 million if evenly distributed, which it was not.  The ACC locked in their deal last year with ESPN for 155 million a year for the next 13 YEARS.  That's an average of 13 million a year for 12 schools.  Let's say Pitt and Syracuse each bring around 13 million in TV revenues.  That 13 year deal will be worth approsimately $9 million a year in its final year, assuming only a 3% rate of inflation.  That is an awful deal for the ACC.

Moving onto the SEC - Their deal with ESPN was for 2.25 billion over 15 years + 825 million from CBS (or a constant 205 million a year).  This gets each current school 17 million per year in current day dollars.  Too bad in 15 years it's probably going to be the equivalant of 11 million dollars a year.

Meanwhile the current B1G deal for $15 million/school/year expires in 5 years, at which point they get to negotiate a better deal.  They also get hopefully increasing revenues each year from the BTN.  The B1G is still solidly winning the TV money game.  No need to panic yet.

WolvinLA2

September 20th, 2011 at 8:59 PM ^

I don't know if that's true about the Pac-16, if it happens.  It would have Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Oregon (but only lately) and a then a bunch of average to below average programs.  That's really only 25% of the conference that anyone outside of their respective states cares about.  Plus they'll always have the time zone thing working against them. 

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 9:26 PM ^

the timezone thing doesn't hurt you when you're showing games on the West Coast or building a network that exists primarily in the Western US. The Pac-16 exists in an area with a shitload of people and one that is growing at a rapid rate. It's home to a bunch of power programs. It doesn't matter how many mediocre teams they have, ESPN and the like will pounce on the potential TV ratings of an Oklahoma-USC game for the same reason it pounced on the Longhorn Network.

Snidely Doo Rash

September 20th, 2011 at 10:53 PM ^

Plan A  -- one or two new protected rivalries  to go to 14 and 16 when necessary

Legends             Leaders 

 ND                      Navy 

Air Force             Army                

 

Compare the the SSEC (SUPERSIZED South East Conference) and this is pure win.  Adding Mizzou and A&M in the West and moving Auburn to the East seems pretty lame on their part.  I don't see how they keep the Iron Bowl mystique without other decent protected rivalries to balance out the schedule.  

Plan 9 from outer space.  If we need 16 plus teams to get two auto-bids, enlist teams like uconn, kansas, etc to be like IU and NW of yore so the traditional powers to keep racking up wins and championships--works for me.  

g_reaper3

September 20th, 2011 at 8:31 PM ^

Only Texas and ND really add anything. Pitt, Syracuse and Missouri are all dilutive. Even Nebraska was only additive because it allowed a B1G championship game.

Mr. Yost

September 20th, 2011 at 8:46 PM ^

And Nebraska actually added value to the conference...they're one of the 5-10 most valued programs in the country.

 

Texas and Notre Dame are the only teams out there that add value to us. Oklahoma would, but not enough if we have to drag Oklahoma St. along (which we would).

 

I know it seems like I'm spazzing out. But I've worked in college athletics a long time, and this isn't about common sense, athletics, geography, competitive balance or any other rationale a fan has...it's about money, TV revenue (money), exposure, and power.

 

That's why in my post below I said the ACC is 5% not about money...because if the ACC get UConn and Rutgers they basically rule the east coast. Which gives them money, but it also gives them visability, exposure and makes the footprint that much bigger. ACC is trying to be a national or semi-national conference. Not a regional conference like it has been. Same with the Pac-12. The Big Ten and SEC don't have that problem, they're already national...especially the Big Ten. If Michigan and playing Michigan State, and Clemson is playing Virginia Tech, both ABC/ESPN games. Michigan and Michigan State is going to be the national game. California is going to have Michigan/MSU on ABC and the ACC game on ESPN2...and until ESPN started doing that flip flop thing (which is awesome)...the ACC game wouldn't have been shown at all in California.

 

ACC is going to get a very good network deal if they continue to expand. The Pac-12 already has a solid one, if they can reel in Texas and Oklahoma then they're right there with the Big Ten and SEC. Then if all 4 conferences have their own network, you're getting all of your teams on TV. The amount of money going to those 4 conferences would be sickening.

 

That's what it's about. Otherwise, the Big Ten wouldn't want Texas...who cares how good they are. Wisconsin v Texas Women's Basketball? That's a budget nightmare. But if you have TV dollars from football to cover those expenses and make your school money...then it's not so bad. Fuck Jane Smith's mom who'd never make it to a game.

Mr. Yost

September 20th, 2011 at 8:35 PM ^

You guys are killing me.

 

Please wake up and listen.

 

This has NOTHING to do with athletics, academics or competitiveness!

 

NOTHING!

 

Not for the B1G it doesn't...not for the SEC it doesn't and not for the Pac-12 it doesn't. The ACC, maybe 5% of the equation.

 

It's about MONEY! PERIOD.

 

Stop with the "Big Ten is losing out" bullshit! They are not. The Big Ten is 10 years behind is actually the dumbest thing anyone could ever say...the B1G has been the most forward thinking conference of them ALL. The Big Ten Network was a success before ANY of this happened...the Big Ten was the only conference smart enough to come out with their own network and now everyone wants one. So that argument is #fail.

 

Now. I'm going to say this slow...

...the Big Ten is NOT going to make ANY move without Notre Dame. PERIOD.

 

Do Missouri and Pitt sound nice? Absolutely. And from an athletic and academic standpoint they make sense. But now you have $100 million and you're dividing it 12 ways...you add those two teams and you get $110 and you're divinding it 14 ways...your teams are LOSING money.

Adding Notre Dame and any other team, I don't care if it's f-ing UL Monroe...and you make MORE money.

 

Argue about if this is sad, if it's ethically okay...I have no problem with that. But bitching about the B1G being behind and saying we missed out on teams is so far from the truth. Too many people are thinking from a fans perspective...not a business perspective. I can't blame you, but these decisions aren't being made from a fan perspective...if they were, we would've had a playoff 15 years ago.

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 9:18 PM ^

you haven't explained why ESPN and Fox are going to pay more for the B1G as is than they will for an SEC and Pac-16.

I agree we're waiting for Notre Dame, but there's an okay chance that the Big East finds a way to stay together. And if that happens, I don't know how we can hope to be compete with those two conferences for TV rights.

WolvinLA2

September 20th, 2011 at 9:32 PM ^

I'll explain it to you.  A few reasons:

People in the Midwest love college football, partly because their colleges have great football, and partly because their states don't have pro football (Iowa and Nebraska).  This is similar to the SEC but not the ACC or Pac-12.  A high percentage of the population in the Big Ten states like Big Ten football.

The Big Ten schools are the most national schools in the country.  Any major city in the US will have many alumni from every Big Ten school.  Not so with every other conference.  Additionally, the big time Big Ten schools have very national followings, particularly UM, OSU and Nebraska.  Much less so for the other conferences.  The Big Ten schools are also the largest, so their alumni base is simply far larger than any other conference.

The Big Ten has the most tradition of all the major conferences.  No conference has the traditional rivalries that we have.  Do people outside of California care about USC-UCLA?  Do people outside of the South care about the Iron Bowl when both teams aren't in the top-5?  But SportsCenter raves about UM-OSU even when Michigan sucks.  And outside of the SEC, no conference has as many nationally relevent (and interesting) teams as the Big Ten. 

You focus too much on the footprint, but the Big Ten is national.  West Coasters don't like to leave the West Coast, same with East Coasters.  Midwesterners are everywhere, there are a lot of them and they are passionate fans that demand the BTN on their TVs. 

 

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 9:44 PM ^

I'm still paying more for the league that includes Texas and a state with a population of ~40 million. And I'm paying more for the SEC, too. Because all of those midwesterners are moving to Texas and California and the Southeast and those are markets I as a TV executive want to dominate.

Frankly, the above argument sounds a lot like the kind of stuff Notre Dame fans spew to justify their NBC deal.

Mr Miggle

September 20th, 2011 at 9:50 PM ^

The PAC-16 is less attractive because they have no early games. The SEC probably will get paid about the same as the B1G.  

The  B1G makes a significant amount of their revenue from the BTN. They're well ahead of other conferences in generating their own TV revenue.

Does it really matter if some other conference got a bigger deal? Conferences tend to sign long term deals whose relative values usually decline over time. That's one more big advantage of the BTN. 

Tacopants

September 21st, 2011 at 12:15 AM ^

It's like people looking at pro football contracts.  Oh Mike Vick signed for 100 million?  Except there's no way he's going to make the last 20 million?  And the entire contract is speculative except for the 39 million guaranteed?  So Mike Vick is going to make for sure 39 million and maybe possibly if he never gets hurt again 80 million but will probably be cut for salary cap reasons in 2 years?  Oh.

Yooper

September 20th, 2011 at 9:39 PM ^

It will and should be ND plus one (the plus one doesn't matter that much). I know it is ouside the box but I still like the suggestion the other day of adding Vandy as the plus one. Excellent academics plus competitive athletics. I like Northwestern in the conference and Vandy is very similar in many ways.

Hardware Sushi

September 20th, 2011 at 8:36 PM ^

Not that this matters but it just sort of hit me when I saw someone talking about how screwed WVU is right now.

How happy are Utah fans this week? Let's see:

  • Already in one of the predator conferences guaranteeing they'll be in a BCS conference when one year ago they were basically Las Vegas Bowl-bound or bust.
  • Destroyed their biggest rival BYU in the Holy War 54-10 for their most lopsided win in like 70 years.
  • Get to sit back with some popcorn and watch as institutions as much as 150 years older and with up to seven more national championships worry about where they'll end up in six months.

Very OT, but I would be a happy Ute.

WolvinLA2

September 20th, 2011 at 8:50 PM ^

I don't see why people are pissed about this.  The Big Ten is just fine how it is, Missouri isn't exactly a big fish - remember how we didn't want them a year ago? They're lucky to have a conference right now, but they'll just get smoked in the SEC which will look a lot more watered down in a couple years. 

Penn State is not going to the Big East.  What is better for PSU?  Their biggest games against OSU, Wisconsin and Michigan?  Or against Florida State, Miami, Clemson?  How many Clemson fans do you think will head up to central PA in November?  Not many.  Plus Penn State would lose all Midwest recruiting, which has been big for them lately, and not gain any advantage on the East Coast, where they already have as much of a presence as they can get.  If anything, playing in the same league as Pitt would hurt their in-state advantage, since they would be seen more as peers than they do right now.

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 8:57 PM ^

The Big Ten is fine until the SEC and Pac-16 start renegotiating their TV deals and a revenue gap starts to develop. We're not ever going to be left out in terms of power, but we're not going be able to make as much money as the 16 team conferences are because we won't have the geographic distribution.

Nobody is leaving the Big Ten, that's a stupid point that people keep making. Penn State is fine.

WolvinLA2

September 20th, 2011 at 9:06 PM ^

Unless Texas agrees to share evenly, the Pac-16 TV deals won't get any bigger on a per team basis than the Big Ten.  Nobody cares about most of the Pac-16 teams, and most of their alumni consolidated in that area, Texas excluded. 

Big Ten schools are larger and more prestigious, thus their alumni are everywhere, as are their fans.  There are way more Big Ten fans in LA than Pac-16 fans in Chicago, maybe 20 times.  There are lots of poeple in LA that wanted to watch Michigan-EMU, OSU-Toledo, etc. so the BTN will always be popular nationwide.  No one in Chicago or Atlanta or DC wants to watch Oregon-Central Oregon Tech or ASU-Northern Arizona.

PurpleStuff

September 20th, 2011 at 9:28 PM ^

The BTN only works because thousands of people in every big city in America refuse to miss a single Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. football game and are willing to suck it up and pay a premium through their cable company.

Nobody cares about Missouri football.  Nobody outside Texas cares about A&M football.  Adding these teams to the SEC doesn't make people in St. Louis, Houston, Kansas City, and Dallas more willing to pay a premium to make sure they don't miss Florida taking on the Citadel. 

This is going to end up being expansion for the sake of expansion and poses no threat to the Big Ten's financial dominance of the sport.

 

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^

The BTN works because there are damn near 10 million people apiece in Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Pennsylvania and the threat of missing their team's games means enough to them to demand it be on basic cable. There's still no other real network that operates like that in the country for us to gauge how much they'd bring in.

PurpleStuff

September 20th, 2011 at 10:09 PM ^

They would already be making more money than the Big Ten.  This isn't about getting ratings in your home market, it is about being able to charge a premium to cable subscribers across the country who won't miss a game between their alma mater and Buttfuck State.  There are about 11 USC alums living outside of California.  The overwhelming bulk of Texas fans are in Texas.  Putting those two teams in the same league doesn't make it any more likely that viewers in New York, Boston, Atlanta, or Chicago will pay a premium so they don't miss a single game those teams play. 

The BTN was able to increase the size of the pie because they have a nationwide, captive audience they can gouge (just like they tried to do with ESPNU back in 2006).  Few, if any, other schools have that, and putting a bunch of them in the same league doesn't change that fact.

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 10:16 PM ^

the majority of the BTN's carriage is still in and directly surrounding Big Ten states. Where it's available outside of those core states on premium tiers, the numbers of subscribers vary wildly. The Big Ten could be seen in 70-some million homes but still only has 40 million subscribers.

The Pac-12 network expects to launch with 40 million subscribers without the B12 schools

PurpleStuff

September 20th, 2011 at 10:24 PM ^

Every subscriber outside the conference footprint is just free money.  I don't think any of the potentially expanded leagues can make that kind of extra cash because they just don't have the large fanbases spread out all across the country that the Big Ten has (and I certainly don't see expansion creating that opportunity if it didn't exist in the first place).  I also don't see how the expansion of the footprint by the SEC (getting access to Missouri and one of the ten D-1 programs in Texas) creates enough new pie to give everybody in the league a bigger piece.

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 10:28 PM ^

and what about, say, ESPN in all of this? Do you think they're not going to hand out a huge sack of money, the likes of which we've never seen to these superconferences that control every major matchup in the sport as well as the system of determining championships?

The SEC is going to move from it's stupid syndicated "network" to a subscriber based one... that's what this means for them

PurpleStuff

September 20th, 2011 at 10:38 PM ^

But are people going to pay for it?  And are they going to pay for it outside the SEC footprint?

And how does expansion make it any more viable/profitable at this point?  Playing in the SEC won't suddenly make a national audience care about Missouri football.  A&M is decidedly in the middle of the pack in the SEC with respect to ratings appeal, and it's unclear to me whether they have enough pull as a fanbase on their own to get an SEC network carried across the state of Texas. 

Obviously both conferences can/will sign big TV deals, but it comes down to viewers and neither a Pac 16 or an expanded SEC have enough per team to justify them making more money than the Big Ten, and neither of those leagues has the nationwide fanbases required to make a network anything more than a regional option.

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 10:28 PM ^

and what about, say, ESPN in all of this? Do you think they're not going to hand out a huge sack of money, the likes of which we've never seen to these superconferences that control every major matchup in the sport as well as the system of determining championships?

The SEC is going to move from it's stupid syndicated "network" to a subscriber based one... that's what this means for them

neoavatara

September 20th, 2011 at 8:54 PM ^

Does Missouri add anything to the SEC?  They would probably be in the lower half football wise, don't add terrible amount as far as footprint...I don't get it.  At least WVU would add a traditional football power, sort of.  

As for the Big 10...chill. 

Look, I won't be too upset if we don't add anyone.  Unless others go to 16 teams, this doesn't mean much.  We should only expand if it improves the Big 10, either in prestige, money, or both. 

Brodie

September 20th, 2011 at 9:01 PM ^

Missouri adds two large TV markets. Stop thinking in terms of wins and loses. The SEC wants nothing to do with WVU because the state of West Virginia is a giant pile of poo in terms of TV.

Do people not get that this is all about TV money yet, seriously? The SEC and Pac 16 are going to make so, so, soooo much money out of this expansion that it will make our current deal look mediocre by comparison. Hell, even the ACC will get some severe overpayment when they're one of the 4 superpowers in the sport.

Zone Left

September 20th, 2011 at 9:07 PM ^

I thought the TV market thing really mattered last year, but I've reconsidered. It's about the teams. Nebraska vs Wisconsin is going to get a ton of play this year, even though neither has a huge TV base. Oregon is a small market team, but they're good, so people care about them. From an athletics standpoint, I'd much rather have Oklahoma than Rutgers or Missouri, regardless of how many TV sets they may have in their geographic area.

WolvinLA2

September 20th, 2011 at 9:15 PM ^

It's both:  Nebraska is a great choice despite being in a poor media market, and TAMU would be a great choice even if they sucked because of where they are.  You need one or the other.

Missouri is average in both so they're probably a wash. 

Oklahoma is a great draw, but because there is no major media market in Oklahoma, bringing OK State with them waters it down a little too much.