Nate Silver on B1G expansion

He once had an awkward moment......just to see what it was like. 

in Maryland and Rutgers recruiting sphere, would you rather play in the ACC, the Big East, or the B1G? I think as they get money on campus, and their facilities improve, so will their programs. (Syracuse - have you seen the basketball dome they play football in?)

Being from DC, between Maryland, UVA, and Va Tech, there is probably more latent fandom in the Maryland fanbase. Tech are already active, and UVA are an arms length steeplchase sort of bunch (people that think Michigan fans are arrogant have to witness UVA grads first hand).

FWIW, the first ever college football game was played at Rutgers. So there is some legacy to latch onto there. Oh, and Rutgers has hockey.

Will Maryland and Rutgers upgrade? How do we know this will happen?

I don't get this line of thinking at all. You take two historically (and I mean historically -- like, for decades) programs and just by mixing them with the Big 10, they are supposed to get magically better?  As bad as the B1G is this year in football, it's still not as bad as the Big East, and that's the only reason Rutgers is 9-1 this year.  By playing OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc on a regular/semi-regular basis, Rutgers (and UMD) are supposed to have a better record and thus get more fans for their overbuilt stadiums?

Instead, the far more likely option is they will be Purdue or Minnesota - occasionally have 8 or 9 win seasons, but most years putter along with 4-7 wins (with a good portion of those wins coming from the nonconf).

With that recipe, I have no idea why Time Warner in NYC, or any other cable system in that NYC area or Philly area, will add the BTN on anything more than a "sports tier" (i.e., pay $7.99 and get these channels); it won't be basic cable, which is what he needs.

I hope for Delany's sake he has some inside info on the cable systems in NYC and Philly (who have historically been very combative about adding sports - they've fought adding channels that effect the Giants and the Rangers -- you think they're going to care about the Scarlet Knights?). Because otherwise, he is suffering from delusions of grandeur.

Someone gets election results right and therefore they are right about everything? Please tell me you are being facetious...

I agree with you. In fact, I think he's exemplifying the flaw in his own system. His whole approach (in a nutshell) is about extremely accurate data and then combining that with accurate human assumptions. He has the second part wrong in this case.

evidently. Also, the ND ship had not yet sailed. (I bring this up because many reports emphasize that the B1G got ancy when ND affiliated itself with the ACC in all sports but football, sort of).

That's the greatest picture ever.

Never lose sight of the fact it's only dilution from the B1G business perspective if it dilutes each colleges's network share. These moves expand the market, and have the likelihood of making the brand must-see-TV across at least two sports. Take home in the short-term won't be diluted much. These moves make the future a cash-cow.

Think about it. Maryland by itself is not must-see TV. Maryland football vs. Michigan at the Big House? Only Michigan alums are buying a B1G package to see that. Rutgers football vs. MSU? Again, only Rutgers alums are paying a subscription fee to watch that. But what if Rutgers and Maryland were playing new and established B1G basketball powers? That would definitely light up the BTN in CT, DC and NY, right?!

Delaney will add a couple east-coast basketball powers to the mix before all is said and done. The NCAA Tourney is the most lucrative cable-television event out there, not BCS football.

So I'm looking at you 'Cuse, UNC, Pitt, and Duke. You're the univiersities that best fit the B1G's academic and athletic profile. For a basketball fan, which NY, CT and DC are full of, you'd all be must-see TV. So, two of you, come on down! Merry Christmas, BTN shareholders!

If revenues don't grow by the figure you listed BECAUSE of this addition (not an increase that would have happened anyway), Michigan (and the other 11) gave up money.

Based on recent sports TV/media deals, it seems like an easy target. However, it would be interesting to see how much BTN would have gotten with the current 12 vs. the new setup. The incremental amount is what matters - otherwise this addition causes a dilution in earnings. You'd need Delany break out how much they got from DC, Baltmore, North NJ, NYC, etc cable systems to start to figure that out, but my guess is that won't happen. BTN will just announce a deal in a few years that is 50% larger than the previous one and credit Delany's genius of those two additions as being a big part of the reason, with little evidence to back it up.

In short, I can see it being accretive for UMD (I don't think this is the slam dunk others do, but it certainly is possible, perhaps even likely they will be "worth it" financially); for Rutgers, I think Delany looks like a rube starstruck by the lights of the big city of NYC, of which Rutgers has hardly any claim (certainly not enough for the dilution in earnings that adding them will cause).

Your math is wrong. The only way M took a 15% pay cut is if Rutgers and Maryland bring zero dollars to the table. All they have to do is produce what the average Big Ten school produces, and it's a wash. Will that happen? We'll see, but based on their locations, I would assume they will.

Good point.  Didn't the Big Ten have a tie in with the Insight Bowl, out  in Tempe, the past few years, though?  Maybe that's been replaced by "name"/corporate logo by one of the bottom ones you listed.  But it'd be nice to have/keep something out West versu the Southeast heavy/East heavy bowl lineup we now have.

I read somewhere that only 11% of the NYC Metro area population are passionate college football fans, but that also equates to 1.8 million people, which apparently makes it the second largest concentration of college football fans in the country.