LONG OVERDUE
Official Welcome to the Big Ten Nebraska thread
June 9th, 2010 at 6:38 PM | 
once again, all of you are
once again, all of you are
June 9th, 2010 at 6:38 PM |
Dallas & Houston
Dallas & Houston
If the concern is media share, then why Nebraska? Further, in Texas, you have two top ten media markets in Houston and Dallas.
Alas, if the BigTen is only interested in getting into the NYC market, I hear Fordham has a shitty program too.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:56 PM |
well, because texas doesnt
well, because texas doesnt
well, because texas doesnt want to join us. if texas called up jim delaney, said they wanted to join, and that they also wanted a ton of unobtainium, there would be a ton of that shit outside texas' campus tomorrow morning, along with delaney and the big ten ADs waiting to kiss the ass of any texas reps present.
now nebraska is chosen because they have a large national fanbase. they have a solid football program, great tradition, and are an AAU school. after texas and ND, they're the best realistic choice.
and suggesting fordham is just pedantic hyperbole. rutgers still somewhat fits in as a football school. it fully qualified as an academic institution. as far as trying to corner the nyc market, its the best regional choice.
but media share = money. thats what all of this realignment is based off of. a championship game would add maybe 5-10 million (very VERY generous) estimate to the conference pool. increased media share would add far more than that.
This is home...
June 9th, 2010 at 7:04 PM |
again
again
Again, Houston + Dallas are both top ten markets...and the market share per game would likely be higher than that in NYC (where a lot of folk don't care about college football). I don't know where you get "Texas doesn't want to join us"...that seems to run counter to all previous reporting. It appears that we're valuing a ND/Rutgers combo above Texas. And yes, clearly Fordham was a joke...but, frankly, so is Rutgers.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:12 PM |
To quote Joeyb: "Texas is
To quote Joeyb: "Texas is
To quote Joeyb: "Texas is that cute chic at the bar you take home ... and then you notice she has 3 kids"
If we take Texas, we'd have to take at least A&M and Tech as well (maybe even Baylor, ugh). To even things out we'd need another school. That's three more mouths to feed. The Big 10 expansion plan (not the ridiculous theories spouted by speculators - what the Big 10 itself has been trying to do) has been to find one school to round out to 12. It simple math and economics - for each school we add, we need to grow our revenue by about $25 million per year. Its far more feasible with adding one school and a championship game. An increase to the footprint and and a champ game will easily add 25 million. However, if you start adding 3 or even 5 schools, you need to find 75-125 million dollars more in revenue. Good fucking luck. The only way the Big 10 can make expanding to 14 profitable is if they get all of their top picks, i.e. ND, Texas, Nebraska, without the entourage. Rutgers and Mizzou might help if we increase to 16, but really, they'd be dead weight.
So that's why Texas doesn't want us - because we can't afford to pay child support for its kids.
This is home...
June 9th, 2010 at 7:33 PM |
The only thing that is split
The only thing that is split
The only thing that is split evenly is TV contracts. Brian showed BTN was around $6mil/team and other TV was around $7mil/team.
Missouri would actually get us the markets around them. Between Kansas City and St. Louis, that's about 4.8 million people. Let's say 4 people per household, and 5 out of every 6 households have a basic cable package or better. That's 1 million subscriptions or $8.8 million extra dollars for the BTN. Add in the extra money from ABC for broadcasting 8 or so games/ year in that market and I am sure we can get up to $13 million.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:41 PM |
Half of BTN revenue...
Half of BTN revenue...
...goes to the Big Ten, half to its partner, Fox Sports. So + $4.4M in your example.
LSA '89 - MBB Natl Champions, Big 10/Rose Bowl Champions | @MGoShoe
June 9th, 2010 at 8:07 PM |
Ah, yes. I forgot about that.
Ah, yes. I forgot about that.
Ah, yes. I forgot about that. There are still other things that come into play when you add other markets like advertising, populations in the rest of the state, and whatnot, so I think my point is still valid.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:40 PM |
Texas may have kids, but
Texas may have kids, but
Texas may have kids, but Rutgers is a girl you'd be embarrassed to be seen in public with. Hard to get more public than national television.
June 9th, 2010 at 8:05 PM |
Bottom line - Texas + 3
Bottom line - Texas + 3
Bottom line - Texas + 3 randos makes less sense from an economic standpoint that just Rutgers.
This is home...
June 9th, 2010 at 8:43 PM |
Yeah, somehow Michigan, Ohio
Yeah, somehow Michigan, Ohio
Yeah, somehow Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, Nebraska, etc playing in Piscataway doesn't have the same cache' as playing in Austin.
The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun". (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)
June 9th, 2010 at 6:07 PM |
Well, look at a map. Even
Well, look at a map. Even
Well, look at a map. Even with adding Nebraska, you have to pass through at least two states before reaching Texas. Adding Missouri or Kansas gets you down to one. Then, you consider that Texas won't come without A&M, probably Tech, and maybe Baylor, that's 2-4 teams that to bring you the Texas market. Now consider the teams you have to add to make them even remotely close to the Big10 and you are looking at another 2 at the minimum. It's just not worth the hassle or the extra teams to get the market.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:15 PM |
the hassle?
the hassle?
Delaney said that they want to expand into the south (and we know they aren't going to SEC country) where the population is shifting. That's not Missouri or Kansas. We don't have to touch foot in every state toward the south to add a southern (or Texan) team. I'm not sure why you're so opposed to Texas? I'd much rather "have to" add Texas A&M than choose to add Rutgers or anyone from the Big East.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:24 PM |
I'm not opposed to them, I am
I'm not opposed to them, I am
I'm not opposed to them, I am just being realistic about it. flying in a plane to get to 4+ conference games each year is a huge hassle.
Did he say "expand into the south" or "expand south"? According to this
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_map-The_South_Modern_.png
Missouri and Maryland are technically in the south. I know it's arbitrary, but so is pretty much every other definition.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:32 PM |
"sunbelt"
"sunbelt"
Here's a good link on the subject:
http://detnews.com/article/20100518/SPORTS0203/5180409/Big-Ten-s-Jim-Del...
He mentions "the south" and "the sunbelt". That's certainly TX and not MD. From what I hear, getting to State College is a big pain in the ass; can't be much harder to fly to Austin.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:48 PM |
Fair enough about the sun
Fair enough about the sun
Fair enough about the sun belt, but he also says "gaining a foothold" not conquering it. Plus, like I was pointing out and the other commenter pointed out, the other schools that we would need to take along with Texas just aren't worth it.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:00 PM |
Have to go there to gain a foothold
Have to go there to gain a foothold
Well, to "gain a foothold" we'd have to actually go to the sunbelt (which doesn't include Nebraska...although I'm thrilled with that addition). I'd agree that I'd skip on Texas if TTU and Baylor were required, but it seems that the most political would require A&M to stay with Texas and maybe not the others. We shall see, but I don't see Rutgers/UConn/Maryland as being any better than TTU.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:09 PM |
I would say Missouri or any
I would say Missouri or any
I would say Missouri or any on-the-border school (on the south side) gets us a foothold. You get Texas and you have stranglehold.
Like I said it's all arbitrary and who knows what he was thinking when he said that. He could have been throwing a stone into the woods for the media while they tried to massage ND into joining.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:38 PM |
Missouri isn't sunbelt
Missouri isn't sunbelt
Missouri is no more Sunbelt than Nebraska is west coast. Indeed we'll likely never know the thought behind the statement, but the statement was indeed about the sunbelt. Alas, I just want Texas and cringe....absolutely cringe at the thought of Rutgers instead.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:26 PM |
TX Doesn't Play Well with Others
TX Doesn't Play Well with Others
TX looks great on paper, but they are going to wreak havoc on the poor P10. They would do the same to the B10. I wanted TX initially too, but the more I thought about it we are better off with them in P10. Also, do u really want to take A&M, TTU, OK, Okla St and Baylor? Because that appears to be the price.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
June 9th, 2010 at 6:34 PM |
If that's the price
If that's the price
If that's the price, agreed...I don't want Baylor, TTU or OKSt. I'd love Oklahoma though.
Anyway, we've been willing to tolerate years of ND's garbage with regard to expansion, so if we'd take the time to sort out those headaches, we should have the financial muscle and political knowhow to give Texas a go. If it doesn't work...so be it...but going from "maybe Texas" to "maybe Rutgers" is like going from a BMW to a Beetle.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:50 PM |
TX, Yes ...
TX, Yes ...
but TX and her five ugly sisters, NFW. Here is what is going to happen. They are effectively taking the entire B12 South (unless Baylor gets dropped for CO). TX will dominate that division and will constantly try to bully the conference and threaten to take its marbles and go home if it does not get its own way. We do not need that headache in the B10, especially if it means we have to split the money with the 5 other teams they insist we take to get them. ND is a pain in the ass, but it will be very hard for them to bully anyone.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
June 9th, 2010 at 5:51 PM |
And what about Texas? If the
And what about Texas? If the
And what about Texas? If the Pac 10 won't take Baylor, they've got to be back in play, right?
Patience, patience... Delaney's got this shit figured out.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:53 PM |
Reading that
Reading that
Reading that, I thought, "Awesome, who the fuck needs Missouri anyway!" Then, I read further and said, "Rutgers? Why the hell are we even thinking about thinking about Rutgers?!?!?!" Texas. Texas. Texas.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:58 PM |
I don't think anyone knows
I don't think anyone knows
I don't think anyone knows what the Big Ten is thinking. All the leaks that have seemed to have any basis in reality have come from the Big 12. I would doubt any Big Ten news that doesn't have a direct connection to the Big 12 at this point.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:59 PM |
yeah
yeah
why on earth would we want the near bottom of the Big East, Rutgers or Maryland?? Especially if Mizzou doesn't make the cut. Should get Pitt or maybe even Virginia with its great academics and location.
June 9th, 2010 at 7:20 PM |
I must have missed something,
I must have missed something,
I must have missed something, but what happened to Pitt? I know it wouldn't help extend the Big Ten territory, but I thought they were a good fit. I would prefer them over Rutgers and Maryland. Anyone else agree?
June 9th, 2010 at 7:25 PM |
Pitt would be great
Pitt would be great
it it would agree to move closer to NYC:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10158/1063734-142.stm
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
June 9th, 2010 at 7:26 PM |
You said it yourself:
I
You said it yourself:
I
You said it yourself:
I know it wouldn't help extend the Big Ten territory
It's all about money, and expansion without expanding the footprint means less money for everyone.
This is home...
June 9th, 2010 at 7:34 PM |
Well said. I wonder why they
Well said. I wonder why they
Well said. I wonder why they were brought up earlier in the discussion though.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:18 AM |
It was the early rounds, to use an analogy
It was the early rounds, to use an analogy
When Pitt was being talked about heavily we were in the round of 64, maybe even the play-in-game, now I would say we are in the middle of the sweet 16. We are all starting to get a better picture of all of this as it comes together.
"We alway's did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view"
June 9th, 2010 at 5:47 PM |
i can admit when i don't know something
i can admit when i don't know something
can someone explain to me when this would go into effect for scheduling/games?
would Michigan be playing Nebraska as early as September or would they wait a season?
June 9th, 2010 at 5:49 PM |
wait
wait
they'd have to wait a season to get all the schedule changes done and get all the little things, and I'd probably guess some bigger things, in place
June 9th, 2010 at 5:51 PM |
I've read many places that
I've read many places that
I've read many places that 2012 is when we would see changes. This makes sense considering we have already finished our schedule for 2011.
June 10th, 2010 at 2:22 AM |
Most likely
Most likely
no earlier than 2011. I believe if they wanted to make this happen in 2011 it is possible but would probably cost $ in broken contracts etc. Off the top of my head, when the ACC raided the Big East in 2003, I don't think they were integrated into the conference until 2005.
"We alway's did feel the same, we just saw it from a different point of view"
June 9th, 2010 at 5:48 PM |
I like it
I like it
Nebraska vs. Michigan
Nebraska vs. OSU
Nebraska vs. PSU
To a Michigan fan first, Big Ten fan 2nd, those look like some great games
June 9th, 2010 at 5:54 PM |
Nebraska v Penn State
Nebraska v Penn State
Nebraska v Penn State is another contrived rivalry for the sell out Penn State. Why don't they still schedule Pitt or WVU... Because they are a bunch of pussies! Eat that Paterno!
I love Blue like a fat kid loves food...
June 9th, 2010 at 6:54 PM |
They have some history
They have some history
Penn State robbed Nebraska of a perfect season in 1982 with the help of a terrible officiating call, then went on to win the national championship; in 1994, Nebraska claimed both national titles despite Penn State's 11-0 (8-0) undefeated season, their second in the Big Ten.
June 9th, 2010 at 8:17 PM |
I get the feeling
I get the feeling
Nebraska vs. Iowa
would be a pretty big tilt too; Toss in a pretty solid Wisconsin and Nebraska is going to be black and blue by the end of the season...
You have to play this game like somebody just hit your mother with a two-by-four. ~Dan Birdwell
June 9th, 2010 at 5:52 PM |
maryland? that's a new
maryland? that's a new
maryland? that's a new name. fits the profile though. big research institution, academics comparable to some BT schools. location's a bit off though.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:53 PM |
All Above Nebraska-Chiding Aside
All Above Nebraska-Chiding Aside
Welcome (if this is true) to the B10 Nebraska. I think this is a great get for the conference. I still would like to see 14, but if this is our 12 I'm cool with it. I wouldn't mind still adding Texas and Mizzou for 14 though.
In the words of an icon, "To hell with Notre Dame."
"I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin
June 9th, 2010 at 6:53 PM |
Co-sign
Co-sign
On the ND part, especially.
I would love it if the Big Ten stiffed ND. They spent years looking down their nose at the Big Ten and declining to join, while scheduling 3 or 4 Big Ten teams. I would love it if they missed the money train that is the BTN and had to take years of crappy records to try to re-up with NBC - who may not want them. Delaney should just play the clip of Bo saying "To hell with Notre Dame."
"Nobody cares what you think!"
June 9th, 2010 at 5:56 PM |
welcome, cornhuskers
welcome, cornhuskers
your college football history and tradition will be appreciated around here... even though you haven't sniffed a national title since 1995.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:07 PM |
Sucks to have me bring this up...
Sucks to have me bring this up...
But they got down on their knees (not to pray) and stole a partial National Championship in 1997...
Ok... gotta go take a shower - I just feel soiled.
Wolverine Nation Unite!
June 9th, 2010 at 5:54 PM |
Well.....
Well.....
West: NEB,PUR,WIS,MINN,IOWA,ILL.
East; UM,OSU,MSU,PSU,IND,NW.
Anyone?
Fuck it, Dude, let's go bowling.
June 9th, 2010 at 5:57 PM |
Sure
Sure
Sure, but it is tilted to the East, IME.
I love Blue like a fat kid loves food...
June 9th, 2010 at 5:59 PM |
switch Purdue and Northwestern
switch Purdue and Northwestern
If it stays at 12 we probably won't be playing Neb all that often, but at least we'll be playing them some of the time.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:01 PM |
Yep
Yep
That looks pretty good. Football only though. Hey, any chance we can get their hockey team and start a B10 hockey conference?
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
June 9th, 2010 at 6:00 PM |
Put NW in the same division
Put NW in the same division
Put NW in the same division as ILL and PUR in the same division as IND, that way all the last week rivalry games are in the same division.
June 9th, 2010 at 6:02 PM |
Yes
Yes
Good point.
"I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything." B. Simpson
once again, all of you are forgetting the real reason why Rutgers is being targetted. its is to capture the nyc market, but not to capture rutgers fans there. the big ten doesnt give two shits about the rutgers fans in the nyc area (all 6 of them). no, they care about getting all big ten alums living in the area to put pressure on local cable companies to add btn to their basic packages. the big ten doesnt need rutgers to draw their own (by own i mean scarlet knight) fans. the big ten needs rutgers so that it can leverage preexisting fans in the area.
the big 10 wants those four road games in the nyc area. and since rutgers would be in the east division, that would mean they play penn state (for sure), and either michigan or osu (maybe both), at home, at least every other year. at least one of the big tens biggest cash cows playing in the nyc area every year. now that is what the big 10 wants.
This is home...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgijdypJUEQ