NCAA Conference Realignment

[Tracer Bullet]

Is there anything to the rumor that the big x added Maryland so it had an excuse to rename its divisions?

[ConstableRabbit]

If adding those schools lets the media companies treat them as if they have a significant representation in the NY and DC markets, the B1G should absolutely add Maryland and Rutgers. I don't know why media companies would do that, but I'm not very good at understanding why they make the decisions they make.

 

That's the only possible rationale. The TV market thing makes sense in theory, but in practice I'm skeptical. Not to mention that I think either school dilutes the league/brand (meaning, even if the TV market thing is true, I'm still not sure I'd want to add them). Penn State and Nebraska made sense on various levels; this leaves me feeling that the Big Ten is selling its soul.

People are leaving the midwest -- it's a demographic shift as much as it is anything else. BTN needs eyeballs and SI's Pete Thamel has speculated that the conference could gain $100M additionally annually from a Rutgers/MD addition.

[Andy]

Is there anything to the rumor that the big x added Maryland so it had an excuse to rename its divisions?

I was thinking they could dump the Kid Pix logo too. Surely some enterprising soul could cleverly fit 14 into a logo.

[Vanilla Ice]

big 10 people...

 

which schools do you think are most likely to take you to 16 teams?

 

which schools would you ideally want to take you to 16 teams?

[Smack]

Is there anything to the rumor that the big x added Maryland so it had an excuse to rename its divisions?

I was thinking they could dump the Kid Pix logo too. Surely some enterprising soul could cleverly fit 14 into a logo.

 

http://chronicle.com/img/photos/biz/BigTen_11-12-13-14-15.jpg

[Smack]

big 10 people...

 

which schools do you think are most likely to take you to 16 teams?

 

which schools would you ideally want to take you to 16 teams?

 

I wouldn't mind UNC and Virginia if the ACC teams are up for grabs. That keeps everyone contiguous.

[Tracer Bullet]

big 10 people...

 

which schools do you think are most likely to take you to 16 teams?

 

which schools would you ideally want to take you to 16 teams?

 

A friend of mine suggested Colorado and Cal as fitting the mold

[Exile on Waveland]

If adding those schools lets the media companies treat them as if they have a significant representation in the NY and DC markets, the B1G should absolutely add Maryland and Rutgers. I don't know why media companies would do that, but I'm not very good at understanding why they make the decisions they make.

 

That's the only possible rationale. The TV market thing makes sense in theory, but in practice I'm skeptical. Not to mention that I think either school dilutes the league/brand (meaning, even if the TV market thing is true, I'm still not sure I'd want to add them). Penn State and Nebraska made sense on various levels; this leaves me feeling that the Big Ten is selling its soul.

People are leaving the midwest -- it's a demographic shift as much as it is anything else. BTN needs eyeballs and SI's Pete Thamel has speculated that the conference could gain $100M additionally annually from a Rutgers/MD addition.

 

Sure, great. I'm all for eyeballs. I'm just not sold this is anything more than hypothetical eyeballs. As this blog points out, http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/ , Rutgers may be the most popular team in New York City, but with just 600,000 fans; a great comparison is that Nebraska is the most popular team in Omaha, Nebraska, with about 400,000 fans. Rutgers has more football fans than all of three Big Ten teams (Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern). Maryland has less fans than every single Big Ten team. I agree that Rutgers and Maryland are close to huge TV markets; but, at some point, doesn't actually being popular in those TV markets matter?

 

Again, if this leads to $100 million more in revenue based on TV markets, that's great; I just do no understand why it would. Moreover, even if it does for the time being, surely someone eventually will realize that 600,000 fans aren't worth that much. And then the Big Ten will be left with Rutgers -- a team that has gone to less bowl games than Indiana. Less than Indiana!

Edited November 19, 2012 by Exile on Waveland

[hawkeyecub]

I hate this so much. Is the extra $3-6M per year for each school really worth completely selling your soul and diluting the conference?

 

Football needs to be separated from the rest of college sports. Leave every other sport to play in conferences that make sense geographically, competitively and historically and let football just swing it's dick around and create whatever scheduling arrangements you want for a few extra mill.

[bukie]

I hate this so much. Is the extra $3-6M per year for each school really worth completely selling your soul and diluting the conference?

 

Football needs to be separated from the rest of college sports. Leave every other sport to play in conferences that make sense geographically, competitively and historically and let football just swing it's dick around and create whatever scheduling arrangements you want for a few extra mill.

It's just sports. It'll be okay.

[Exile on Waveland]

I hate this so much. Is the extra $3-6M per year for each school really worth completely selling your soul and diluting the conference?

 

Agreed. Let's assume the money is right. I'd still rather not have this expansion.

[ConstableRabbit]

If adding those schools lets the media companies treat them as if they have a significant representation in the NY and DC markets, the B1G should absolutely add Maryland and Rutgers. I don't know why media companies would do that, but I'm not very good at understanding why they make the decisions they make.

 

That's the only possible rationale. The TV market thing makes sense in theory, but in practice I'm skeptical. Not to mention that I think either school dilutes the league/brand (meaning, even if the TV market thing is true, I'm still not sure I'd want to add them). Penn State and Nebraska made sense on various levels; this leaves me feeling that the Big Ten is selling its soul.

People are leaving the midwest -- it's a demographic shift as much as it is anything else. BTN needs eyeballs and SI's Pete Thamel has speculated that the conference could gain $100M additionally annually from a Rutgers/MD addition.

 

Sure, great. I'm all for eyeballs. I'm just not sold this is anything more than hypothetical eyeballs. As this blog points out, http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/ , Rutgers may be the most popular team in New York City, but with just 600,000 fans; a great comparison is that Nebraska is the most popular team in Omaha, Nebraska, with about 400,000 fans. Rutgers has more football fans than all of three Big Ten teams (Indiana, Purdue, Northwestern). Maryland has less fans than every single Big Ten team. I agree that Rutgers and Maryland are close to huge TV markets; but, at some point, doesn't actually being popular in those TV markets matter?

 

Again, if this leads to $100 million more in revenue based on TV markets, that's great; I just do no understand why it would. Moreover, even if it does for the time being, surely someone eventually will realize that 600,000 fans aren't worth that much. And then the Big Ten will be left with Rugters -- a team that has gone to less bowl games than Indiana. Less than Indiana!

I think you're underselling how big some of these markets are. Even leaving out NYC... you have the entire state of New Jersey to consider. Getting NJ and maybe NYC markets to have the BTN, along with the Baltimore/DC market is huge.

[Smack]

I hate this so much. Is the extra $3-6M per year for each school really worth completely selling your soul and diluting the conference?

 

Football needs to be separated from the rest of college sports. Leave every other sport to play in conferences that make sense geographically, competitively and historically and let football just swing it's dick around and create whatever scheduling arrangements you want for a few extra mill.

 

The money won't even matter for Purdue, the administration already takes a good chunk of the BTN money. They'll probably do the same thing with the new revenue.

[bukie]

Eventually, the Big Ten will expand to 20 teams, two divisions of ten, so the "Ten" part can make sense again.

[bukie]

Also, with this expansion, the divisions still won't make sense to split geographically east-west unless they split teams within a state (which they already did with Illinois before anyway).

[jersey cubs fan]

I think you're underselling how big some of these markets are. Even leaving out NYC... you have the entire state of New Jersey to consider. Getting NJ and maybe NYC markets to have the BTN, along with the Baltimore/DC market is huge.

 

An entire state that kind of doesn't really care about Rutgers. South Jersey is just a Philly suburb, with no real ties to NYC, and it is Penn State country. Penn State, with a little Temple and other Philly college basketball teams of interest. North Jersey has NYC ties. But people don't grow up hoping to go to Rutgers. They want to go to Princeton or any other Ivy League school, and then you have a Penn State, Virginia, West Virginia tie to big schools. Rutgers is an after thought for the most part. They occasionally grab headlines when they have an outside shot of a really big bowl game. But James Gandolfini isn't much of a celeb anymore and Schiano/Ray Rice are gone.

[Tracer Bullet]

Is the plan that you just get the btn on TVs in NYC and NJ and people will watch big x games that they wouldn't have otherwise watched? Or you just want the initial contract to add the btn to those providers and then who cares if people in NYC actually watch Illinois and Purdue in softball?

 

In other words, is the school just the footprint you need to get the btn into a geographic area? If so, it doesn't matter to the big x if the school has fans in that area, right?

[Guest]

Is the plan that you just get the btn on TVs in NYC and NJ and people will watch big x games that they wouldn't have otherwise watched? Or you just want the initial contract to add the btn to those providers and then who cares if people in NYC actually watch Illinois and Purdue in softball?

 

In other words, is the school just the footprint you need to get the btn into a geographic area? If so, it doesn't matter to the big x if the school has fans in that area, right?

 

They should probably care about the viewership a little bit because the contracts aren't indefinite, but it definitely doesn't matter nearly as much to them as it should to the media companies.

[SouthSideRyan]

It's not Rutgers = NY/NJ market or Maryland = DC market.

 

It's Rutgers + PSU + UM = NY/NJ market and Maryland + every other midwest transplant = DC.

 

I'm not...thrilled with the additions, but I can see the logic, and trust Uncle Jim.

[Andy]

ESPN is reporting that Maryland and Rutgers will join Penn State in the Leaders Division. Illinois will move to Legends Division.

[sneakypower]

for the love of God, rename the stupid divisions

[Tracer Bullet]

It's not Rutgers = NY/NJ market or Maryland = DC market.

 

It's Rutgers + PSU + UM = NY/NJ market and Maryland + every other midwest transplant = DC.

 

I'm not...thrilled with the additions, but I can see the logic, and trust Uncle Jim.

 

But that's the heart of my question. Is it just bc UM fans in NYC can't see UM games on the btn and they're going to tune in for the UM v App St rematch that isn't available to them on any of the channels that carries cfb on Saturday? Do they need a "local" team in order to get the btn into TV package?

 

If that's the case, I see it from a financial perspective. I still don't like it overall.

[Tracer Bullet]

ESPN is reporting that Maryland and Rutgers will join Penn State in the Leaders Division. Illinois will move to Legends Division.

 

Wait, before this, PSU and Illinois were the only teams in the Leaders division? Why are you mentioning PSU?

[SouthSideRyan]

It's not Rutgers = NY/NJ market or Maryland = DC market.

 

It's Rutgers + PSU + UM = NY/NJ market and Maryland + every other midwest transplant = DC.

 

I'm not...thrilled with the additions, but I can see the logic, and trust Uncle Jim.

 

But that's the heart of my question. Is it just bc UM fans in NYC can't see UM games on the btn and they're going to tune in for the UM v App St rematch that isn't available to them on any of the channels that carries cfb on Saturday? Do they need a "local" team in order to get the btn into TV package?

 

If that's the case, I see it from a financial perspective. I still don't like it overall.

 

It's that UM fans alone (or UM and PSU fans together) aren't enough to get the cable companies to add BTN. Add in Rutgers and you have a fighting chance at saturation. This was always one of the most important points in favor of ND, was getting into the NYC market. Rutgers doesn't need to have a dominant share of the NYC fanbase, it just needs to make enough of a further dent to force the cable companies' hands.

[SouthSideRyan]

ESPN is reporting that Maryland and Rutgers will join Penn State in the Leaders Division. Illinois will move to Legends Division.

 

Wait, before this, PSU and Illinois were the only teams in the Leaders division? Why are you mentioning PSU?

 

We still wouldn't have won the division under those circumstances.

 

ETA: I'm guessing it was mentioned because PSU is expected to be a "natural" rival to the east coast schools.

Edited November 19, 2012 by SouthSideRyan