October 29th, 2011 at 1:13 AM ^
BTN's not on the basic digital tier for either of the big cable providers (Time-Warner or Cablevision) in NYC. It is for FIOS, but that's a small share of the market. It's on the sports tier in both systems. Moving up to basic digital in NYC would mean a shit ton of revenue for the BTN.
However, it's doubtful that Rutgers would lead either system to move BTN to basic digital.
October 28th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
And to hell with ND, while I'm at it .
October 28th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
I haven't been there in a few years, but when the football team was decent their fans were far worse than any couch burning/cooler pooping that is regularly mocked here. They aren't an asset to the Big10 and threaten the reputation of the Conference... in ten years they could be Indiana.
October 28th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
And to hell with ND, while I'm at it .
October 28th, 2011 at 10:19 PM ^
And to hell with ND, while I'm at it .
October 28th, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^
No. They have very little fan base even in their home state because of how god awful they are... People in the new york/new jersey area just don't care about college football because the local teams are so bad.
October 28th, 2011 at 10:56 PM ^
Yes, but only if we decide to expand to 14 or 16 teams.
October 28th, 2011 at 11:47 PM ^
Is this Rutgers WITH or WITHOUT Notre Dame?
With? Yes.
Without? No.
I don't add anyone else unless I can add Notre Dame first. As much as I hate them athletically. They're the only school that makes sense money wise and geographically.
October 29th, 2011 at 4:13 AM ^
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-fo…
Here are some actual numbers about number of fans and each school's following. Some takeaways:
Just 14% of NYC market follows college football (compared to 41% in Atlanta, the heart of SEC country). However, only 19% of the Chicago market (the heart of the Big Ten market), follows college football, which is actually lower than the Philadelphia market, which stands at 20%.
Of the college football fans in NYC, RUTGERS BEATS EVERY SCHOOL BY A SIGNIFICANT RATIO.
1. Rutgers: 20.9%
2. Notre Dame: 9.2%
3. Penn State: 6.4%
4. Connecicut: 5.2%
5. MICHIGAN: 5.0%
6. Syracuse: 4.6%
These numbers debunk anyone who says that no one cares about Rutgers in the NYC market. Now, that doesn't mean we should add Rutgers, or that they would be a good fit culturally. Of course, if you really feel that way, just say you don't think Rutgers will be a good cultural fit. That's better than "No" or "I'd rather than 20 teams than Rutgers."
The numbers also debunk the myth that UConn or Syracuse would be better additions because they would capture a greater share of the NYC market. As the numbers indicate, Michigan actually captures a larger share than Syracuse and UConn is only slightly ahead of us.
Of course, the Big Ten doesn't have to try to capture the NYC market. The numbers aren't enough to admit Rutgers alone IMO, but if Notre Dame wants an east coast partner (they already have a significant east coast presence), adding Rutgers would capture 30% of the NYC market. Add Penn State and Michigan, and you have over 40% of the market. Add the remaining Big Ten teams, and you really start to make a dent. WIth Notre Dame, Penn State and Rutgers, you also shore up the Philadelphia market, which is the 4th largest in the country.
As an aside, JoePa has been advocating for years to add an east coast school to create a rivalry for them. He has specifically mentioned Rutgers more than a few times, and might try to threaten to leave for the ACC (with ND) if he doesn't get what he wants. If it comes to that, I don't think we can even think about losing Penn State (and ND) to the ACC. So if ND really has to join a conference and doesn't want to lower their standing in football (which is a near certainty if they join the ACC), adding Rutgers as the 14th team is a real possibility, as supported by the numbers.
October 29th, 2011 at 1:36 AM ^
Nooooo! They would be a horrible fit. Please no, i don't need another random school
October 29th, 2011 at 2:03 AM ^
I'm going to say sure why not? its just fun to say "rrrrrutgerrrrrs".
plus with all this talk of market share, what does a minnesota actually contribute (this is actually a honest question which i admittedly know nothing about)?
October 29th, 2011 at 4:21 AM ^
15th largest TV market in the country (http://www.sportstvjobs.com/resources/local-tv-market-sizes-dma.html), 28th largest fanbase in college football (http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/), and a decent amount of Wisconsin/Iowa/Michigan fans.
October 29th, 2011 at 2:43 AM ^
12 teams is great. See no need to expand.
In fact, ND, which is the best fit, I would only take if Mizzou or Iowa State joined the Big 10.
I hate this "Market" argument. I think being more regional (midwest) is better than expanding out of our region, no matter the "market" numbers.
October 29th, 2011 at 6:27 AM ^
The reason I said "yes" to Rutgers earlier (if the B1G decides to expand) has as much or more to do with academics than football. The B1G has, by a significant margin, the best academic reputation of all the major conferences. Bringing in a school with a marginal or weak academic reputation blurs the distinction we have as excelling in academics as well as athletics. A weak football team is a hell of a lot easier to improve than a weak academic reputation, and besides, we already have Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Ohio State *cough, cough* to carry the banner for excellence in football.
But, I'm happy with the conference as is, and I see no need to add anybody.
October 29th, 2011 at 9:37 AM ^
as TCU does in the Big East.
October 31st, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
We don't need Snookie and Situations affiliated with the B1G. Notre Dame sure, some other place with a rich football tradition sure, but please no Rutgers. We already have enough crappy teams or good teams with bad culture in the B1G.
