Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[CHU]

Agreed, but as you are fond of saying, I think that ship has sailed.

I think that ship has sailed big time. As much as I dislike some things about Notre Dame, I'd rather have the Irish than Rutgers and the many sports the Red Knights are mediocre at (in addition to the perceived theory that Rutgers will automatically bring the New York market).

But expansion is coming (in everything w/ the NCAA), so I guess, hold onto the rails.

 

[matcar]

I think that ship has sailed big time. As much as I dislike some things about Notre Dame, I'd rather have the Irish than Rutgers and the many sports the Red Knights are mediocre at (in addition to the perceived theory that Rutgers will automatically bring the New York market).

But expansion is coming (in everything w/ the NCAA), so I guess, hold onto the rails.

I'd rather have a real school like Texas than any other. We should either shoot for the real stars or don't bother.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

We should either shoot for the real stars or don't bother.

I'll take "Don't bother" for $1000, Alex...

 

[matcar]

I'll take "Don't bother" for $1000, Alex...

Throw me down for $1,000 Daily Double on the same. Mr Delany doesn't seem to care what we think.

I'll say this, I was patently against BTN at the time of its creation...primarily because it's a money grab and ends up costing me more money to watch all Buckeye football games. I live out of state and the only way to catch the games is have BTN, ESPN Gameplan, etc. So, my costs rose in order to watch...I even had to switch providers because, at the time, Dish didn't offer it. All that said, it's so obvious now that BTN is a HUGE win for each Big Ten school. So, when considering how I perceive things versus how Delany rules, go with Delany...he's probably right.

 

[jwinslow]

I'll say this, I was patently against BTN at the time of its creation...primarily because it's a money grab and ends up costing me more money to watch all Buckeye football games. I live out of state and the only way to catch the games is have BTN, ESPN Gameplan, etc.

Do you need gameplan to catch the espn regional games?

 

[TheRob8801]

Do you need gameplan to catch the espn regional games?

Yep.

Dish pretty much has you by the balls when it comes to sports. They pretend to offer the FSN stations and black out 95% of them. Luckily enough there are 3 or 4 ESPN stations that carry games during football season.

Still need Gameplan to get everything though.

 

[jwinslow]

Dish pretty much has you by the balls when it comes to sports.

Humorous, given their campaign to confuse viewers with the 'same lineup for less' pitch.

Sounds like another red vs blue matchup of signals.

 

[matcar]

Do you need gameplan to catch the espn regional games?

Yes, that's been the problem here in Arky. At one point, I hoped I wouldn't need gameplan (and thus have my expenses reduced, but not so.) In the end, none of that really matters as the actual dollars don't amount to what I spend on a typical happy hour...so I was just belly-aching because of the basic premise of having to pay more.

And the other thing that hasn't quite worked out is that there are rare cases where I don't get a game at all...and than was never the case when the agreements were different and gameplan ALWAYS picked up the Buckeyes. I never missed a game from 1996 onward with Gameplan, but with the agreement changes with ESPN/Gamplan and BTN, there are occasionally games that just aren't available here. But as I've said, it's obvious that my bitching about BTN is completely irellevant in the face of the millions it's making for the schools. Delany=smart businessman. Me=Taos.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I'll say this, I was patently against BTN at the time of its creation...primarily because it's a money grab and ends up costing me more money to watch all Buckeye football games. I live out of state and the only way to catch the games is have BTN, ESPN Gameplan, etc. So, my costs rose in order to watch...I even had to switch providers because, at the time, Dish didn't offer it.

I've supported the BTN since the git-go. ESPNGamePlan had every game that wasn't covered by ABC/ESPN/ESPN2, but it was always in the shitty-quality standard def. BTN has been all HD from the start, and what was great was that it came with sports package I had with DTV, and I had already switched to DTV because TimeWarner fucked around with GamePlan and almost made me miss games.

I can see the BTN venture being a money grab, but it also works out as a benefit fan-wise in the long run because the amount of other Buckeye sports you get year 'round. There were several OSU basketball games on BTN that would not have been shown on any other network anyway.

Conversely, conference expansion and creating a title game does jack shit for the fan and does little else than fuck up rivalries and potentially a national title shot. The Big Ten makes enough money with 2-3 conference games a weekend being broadcast on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 and 2-3 more on BTN. So, nearly every Big Ten team gets broadcast almost every week...is one more fucking game going to be worth totally jacking up the conference?

 

[cincibuck]

My only bitch with BTN is in the off live sport product. I had this image of replays of great Buckeye games, Hop Cassidy, Matte and Ferguson, Schliechter beating Michigan in the last minute -- year round no less -- and instead I get Northwestern Thespians, Penn State volleyball and Iowa field hockey.

It also seems as if the schedule here in Ohio is more about the rest of the Big Ten as opposed to OSU. Expansion is going to only increase the amount of time given to other schools. But sounds like it's a done deal.

 

[matcar]

I've supported the BTN since the git-go. ESPNGamePlan had every game that wasn't covered by ABC/ESPN/ESPN2, but it was always in the [censored]ty-quality standard def. BTN has been all HD from the start, and what was great was that it came with sports package I had with DTV, and I had already switched to DTV because TimeWarner [censored]ed around with GamePlan and almost made me miss games.

I can see the BTN venture being a money grab, but it also works out as a benefit fan-wise in the long run because the amount of other Buckeye sports you get year 'round. There were several OSU basketball games on BTN that would not have been shown on any other network anyway.

Conversely, conference expansion and creating a title game does jack [censored] for the fan and does little else than [censored] up rivalries and potentially a national title shot. The Big Ten makes enough money with 2-3 conference games a weekend being broadcast on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 and 2-3 more on BTN. So, nearly every Big Ten team gets broadcast almost every week...is one more [censored]ing game going to be worth totally jacking up the conference?

I have a tough time arguing with anything you've said. But I certainly can understand how adding a certain program could increase BTN viewership and hence $$$ significantly. I'm not for the expansion, but I can see why the $$$ are enticing. It seems like the argument that Delany is making is that the increase in revenue should offset our disappointment in disturbing what is already an outstanding football product. I don't side with him, but if the Big Ten DOES land a Texas, you've gotta believe that BTN $$$ will rise.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

My great hope for the BTN is that it is the catalyst that finally gets a Big Ten Hockey Conference up.

 

[Dryden]

The Big Ten makes enough money with 2-3 conference games a weekend being broadcast on ABC/ESPN/ESPN2 and 2-3 more on BTN. So, nearly every Big Ten team gets broadcast almost every week...is one more fucking game going to be worth totally jacking up the conference?

FWIW, all 12 of Indiana's football games in 2009 were recorded. 8 were broadcast nationally (*where available) in HD on the BTN, and four were carried by the ABC/ESPN family: 1 in HD on ESPN, 1 in HD on ESPN2, 1 on ESPNU, and 1 on ESPN360. Just for showing up and going 4-8, Indiana made $22M last year on TV revenue.

Texas, which has the largest athletic department in the country and for all their recent success, including appearing in this past national title game, had their home opener versus UL-Monroe broadcast on FSN pay-per-view last season. Texas only made $12M in TV revenue. Last years Texas A&M v Texas Tech football game wasn't even on TV in any way, shape, or form. It was radio only.

Nobody should be questioning the creation of the BTN now or fretting over losing broadcast time by expansion. There's plenty enough dead-air on the BTN that they're stocking with filler already to make something work if the Big Ten adds one or three teams. Imagine one of those teams were Notre Dame and the Big Ten conference managed to tie-up an NBC agreement. The Big Ten could go for one nationally broadcast game in HD on NBC every week. Say NBC gets a preference and plurality of Notre Dame games in the arrangement, they could also get one Ohio State game, one Penn State game, and a Michigan game. Anyone think NBC honestly wouldn't go for that? That would also mean one Ohio State game that would otherwise get regional carriage every year would get upgraded to national with a third network in the deal.

More money and more exposure for everybody (especially Notre Dame, of all schools), and there'd still be enough games to go around to satisfy the ABC/ESPN deal and fill up the BTN for a full-slate of Saturday games.

 

[CHU]

I just like how the Big Ten Network forced ESPN into full reactionary mode.

All of sudden, ESPN was adding the word "Network" to almost everything, regardless if the "Big East Network" and "Big 12 Network" are just ESPN Plus.

ESPN's College Network, ESPNU, regardless if it's trying to push the SEC due to the television contract, still has Big Ten content on it. The Big Ten Network doesn't have SEC content on it (outside of national headlines on football feature shows like "Big Ten Football and Beyond".).

Jim Delaney was smart. He didn't want to get "middled" by ESPN.

Now, when TV negotiations come up again, he has ESPN by the crosshairs. Give us a huge deal or potentially lose majority of the Midwest (and the Big Ten Network will continue to grow in the process).

 

[ScriptOhio]

Big Ten expansion could be seismic

INDIANAPOLIS ? Even as the NCAA examines expanding its Division I men's basketball tournament from 65 teams to 96 in the weeks to come, it's the Big Ten's exploration of adding schools that could have a truly seismic, revolutionary impact on college athletics.

"I believe that if we expand, you probably ought to look at more than (just adding a 12th school)," Ohio State athletics director Gene Smith said.

Stressing that was his opinion and may not be shared by some colleagues, Smith added that he believed the impact "would be pretty massive."
.
.
.
.
.

All of that, perhaps supplemented by frustrations with several recent bowl berths, helps explain why Missouri has indicated it would listen to the Big Ten if it knocks, a subtle yet public posture that has offended some of its Big 12 brethren.

Even so, Deaton reiterated Monday that an offer would merit a thorough analysis.

"We (would) owe that to the university," he said. "We (would) owe that to the state and our fans."
.
.
.
.
.

Smith, who was on the Big Eight expansion task force when he was AD at Iowa State, said he hasn't considered the landmark landscape beyond the immediate he has on "a napkin."

But he well-remembers the impact of the Big 12 expansion.

"Killed the (Southwest Conference), (which was) teetering anyway," he said, then listing the Mountain West, Big East and ACC as others influenced.

Those ripples, he added, were "slower probably than what this one would be." Although careful to say the Big Ten might not act at all, he added, "Whatever we do, and whatever we affect, (others) will adjust and they'll survive."

Perhaps so. Just not in any recognizable alignment.


Entire article: Big Ten expansion could be seismic - STLtoday.com