Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[kn1f3party]

The kids table sucks.

 

[Gatorubet]

Day-um! You weren't kidding about that Big-10 expansion.

BIG-26....BIG-26.....BIG-26!!!!!!

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

What Bucky Katt is trying to say is, you all are welcome to stay, provided you drink the Big Ten [strike]Kool-Aid[/strike] [strike]Juicy Juice[/strike] pale ale.

fify

 

[MissouriFan]

Here's a different idea for expansion.

Form two 10 team divisions or really conferences under the Big Ten title that share rules and revenue and meet in a post season conference tournament to determine a champion.

In football you would play each team in your division for a 9 game conference schedule with the division champs and runners up moving on to play the same from the other division in a conference championship tournament.

The East Division Champion would get the West Division runner up on their home field

The West Division Champion would get the East Division runner up on their home field.

The two winners move on to play for the championship at a neutral site.

In Basketball you would play each team in your division home and away for an 18 game conference schedule. For the post season tournament just take the top 8 teams from each division and seed them with the two champions getting the two 1 seeds.

East Division
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Rutgers
Syracuse

West Division
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Northwestern
Texas
Texas A&M
Wisconsin

Add Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse, Texas, and Texas A&M.

If Notre Dame says no then switch them for Pittsburgh.

To help accommodate the large increase in teams the Big Ten could then create the BTN 2. A second channel to sell to cable and satellite companies. While they probably wouldn't get as much for the second channel as the first it would still increase what they are getting and allow two channels to help generate advertising revenue.

 

[Piney]

Here's a different idea for expansion.

Form two 10 team divisions or really conferences under the Big Ten title that share rules and revenue and meet in a post season conference tournament to determine a champion.

I'll give you credit for thinking outside the box. But the chance of this happening is slim and none and slim never had a chance. The main reason is it would never pass a vote because too many current members lose out on annual games they would view as necessary. While under the 16 team 4 pod system they will eventually play all the teams over a 4-6 year period. Under this scenario some teams may never play an east team ever again in football.

Then again... ain't all of these expansion scenarios dreams until we actually hear concrete news versus non-leaks/wishful thinking that get amplified by other news sources quoting that original rumor making it seem likely? (case in point the Missouri rumor recently & the Pitt rumor before that)

 

[Dryden]

Add Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse, Texas, and Texas A&M.

You want the Big Ten to grab Kansas and Maryland too? If this were viable, the Big Ten Men's Basketball Tournament on the BTN would probably draw better ratings than the NCAA Men's Tournament. Hell, we might as well skip Nebraska and pillage Kentucky from the SEC to make the most rediculous basketball conference in the country.

 

[LitlBuck]

Thought this was sort of interesting regarding all the expansion talk.

ESPN-Big Ten blogger Adam Rittenberg took a look at the Learfield Sports Directors? Cup standings in relation to league expansion with some intriguing results. Four current Big Ten members are currently in the top 10 of rankings (which measure how well schools do in 10 men?s and 10 women?s sports) and six are in the top 20. Ohio State is second, Penn State third, Minnesota fifth, Wisconsin ninth, Michigan 19th and Michigan State 20th. That the lowest-ranked conference school is Northwestern at 66th and Purdue is next worst at No. 51, would seem to indicate that the league values well-rounded, successful programs.

Then Rittenberg looked at 14 schools that have been named as possible expansion candidates, and the bottom three in the Directors Cup standings were Kansas (90), Pittsburgh (83) and Rutgers (78), all below Northwestern. Syracuse was 58th, ahead of Northwestern but behind Purdue. Interestingly, Pittsburgh, Rutgers and Syracuse are among the expansion favorites.

Nebraska (6), Virginia (8), Kentucky (16), Maryland (21), Iowa State (22), Texas (23) and Notre Dame (31) fare the best using this yardstick, although Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland would have to be considered long shots to join the Big Ten. Missouri (42), Boston College (43) and Connecticut (49) round out the list.

Rumblings Annex: Items that didn't make print (The Daily Hunter)

 

[BB73]

Nice idea, MissouriFan. I included the new logo for it on Sunday.

If they add: Mizzou/Nebraska/Texas/aTm along with Rutgers/Syracuse/Pitt/UConn/ND, and split into 2 ten-team divisions that would play a full round robin in football, but only play teams in their own division:

THE BIG TwENty

 

[LitlBuck]

You want the Big Ten to grab Kansas and Maryland too? If this were viable, the Big Ten Men's Basketball Tournament on the BTN would probably draw better ratings than the NCAA Men's Tournament. Hell, we might as well skip Nebraska and pillage Kentucky from the SEC to make the most rediculous basketball conference in the country.

what's wrong with basketball we don't have to take Kentucky we could just take UNC:)

 

[cincibuck]

Here's a different idea for expansion.

Form two 10 team divisions or really conferences under the Big Ten title that share rules and revenue and meet in a post season conference tournament to determine a champion.

In football you would play each team in your division for a 9 game conference schedule with the division champs and runners up moving on to play the same from the other division in a conference championship tournament.

The East Division Champion would get the West Division runner up on their home field

The West Division Champion would get the East Division runner up on their home field.

The two winners move on to play for the championship at a neutral site.

In Basketball you would play each team in your division home and away for an 18 game conference schedule. For the post season tournament just take the top 8 teams from each division and seed them with the two champions getting the two 1 seeds.

East Division
Indiana
Maryland
Michigan
Michigan State
Notre Dame
Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Rutgers
Syracuse

West Division
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
Northwestern
Texas
Texas A&M
Wisconsin

Add Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Syracuse, Texas, and Texas A&M.

If Notre Dame says no then switch them for Pittsburgh.

To help accommodate the large increase in teams the Big Ten could then create the BTN 2. A second channel to sell to cable and satellite companies. While they probably wouldn't get as much for the second channel as the first it would still increase what they are getting and allow two channels to help generate advertising revenue.

And then the winner would face off with the winner of the Arab - Israeli conflict or NATO.

 

[LitlBuck]

NATO

what's that

 

[Steve19]

what's wrong with basketball we don't have to take Kentucky we could just take UNC:)

And they hate Duke. That should thrill a lot of folks around here! :)

 

[Buckeyefrankmp]

And they hate Duke.

Both Kentucky and UNC hate Duke. Just bring up Christian Laettner to a Kentucky fan and see the reaction. They can't let that go.

 

[OSU_D/]

Thought this was sort of interesting regarding all the expansion talk.

Rumblings Annex: Items that didn't make print (The Daily Hunter)

See post 2270 for the original article... Hunter is a little slow.

http://www.buckeyeplanet.com/forum/buckeye-football/600701-big-ten-expansion-152.html

Personally I would like to see an average of Director's Cup finishes instead of mid-year results from only one year.

 

[woofermazing]

Mr. Ed on The Ozone said the other day that BTN contract has an annual franchise fee paid to the schools regardless of the networks profit margin. Given its size, some of the expansion candidates probably would not work if the goal is to increase per school income.

Things got complicated when I went and read the Frank the Tank blog that everybody seems to cite. After reading it I determined that somebody's numbers were wrong, and that required a bit more research and due diligence.
What I've come up with is that while the blog is well-written and probably accurate as far as who the possible expansion candidates might be, he missed the mark totally on the dollar value of the BTN, particularly its advertising revenue. Without going into too much detail, here are two of the errors.
1) He assumed that the 122 million paid to the conference by the network was a profit distribution. Part of it was, but the largest part was not. The network is required to pay the conference an annual franchise fee. That fee was around 60 million in year one, but there is an escalator clause that put the fee at 80 million last year. That is 80 million that must be paid irrespective of profit. It comes right off the top and right to the conference. When you deduct the 80 million from the 122 million, you are left with 42 million as the conference's share of the profit. That is a large sum of money, but not nearly the 122 million that Frank bases his numbers on. In essence he has overstated the profitability of the BTN by a factor of 3x. That dilutes the value of new members by that amount as well.
2) He uses a cost of cable fees of around 37 cents per household. The number we have seen is 60-70. We made a number of calls this morning and according to our sources at the Big Ten Network and within the cable industry, the real number is more like 70-80 cents per household.
That's important because it impacts the calculation of how much money was derived from ad income. If the cable fees are actually roughly double, then the ad income is half. Frank's estimate of ad income is then actually off by a factor of 6x (3x overstatement of total profit and 2x overstatement of ad revenue).
It's all important because the underlying assumptions are that the massive profitability of the BTN is driving expansion and will be a key factor in determining how expansion occurs. Further, that where the ad revenue is will be an important issue. While the BTN is profitable, it is not massively profitable and not nearly the factor that most assume, particularly when you view the real ad revenue number.

Hopefully this is pretty accurate, I wanna see expansion, but I don't want to add half the Big East.