Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[woofermazing]

The more I think about this potential PAC-16, the more I think it won't help out in terms of getting everyone more money, atleast through a television deal. The eastern conference would be Baylor, Tech, aTm, Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Arizona, and ASU. So you will mostly have all the games you have now, which apparently aren't cutting it so well.

Baylor had 6 games go untelevised. (half their season!!!!)
Tech 3 games, including their matchup against aTm. You'd think that would be a big deal in Texas.
aTm also 6 games. They never won a game that was broadcast and still went to a bowl.
Texas had 1 game on PPV.
Oklahoma also had 1 game on PPV.
OSU had 2 games untelevised.

That's your Pac-16 network right there. Looks like an awesome lineup that the west coast will eat up.

You'll also get games against Arizona teams that will be ho hum. Plus they can't start till after sundown without killing the crowd and players by heat exhaustion. That cut's out most of the eastern and some of the central time zones from watching. Also, are west coast fans suddenly going to partake in eastern division games? Are they going to wake up at 9 to watch the red river shootout? I highly doubt it.

Your big interdivision matchups aren't going to happen very often, if they play 2 games outside of the division, Texas will play USC once every four years. Sure, they can meet up in a conference championship, but that game will also be competing against every other championship game.

The pac-10 is in the same boat as the Big-12 with revenue sharing right now, they are just isolated enough that no one can poach members. USC took home $6.5 million from tv deals in 08, while Washington State received $3 million. I don't think this Pac-16 is sexy enough to draw a bigger contract, or to fund a successful network. The big markets are too distant and culturally different to pull of. They would get a bigger deal from having more teams obviously, but I don't think it would be much more than what all the teams get now.

You also have a big factor in what is going to happen to USC. What if the NCAA announces major penalties eventually? Would that hinder their contract negotiations? I wonder if the Pac-10 is trying to move quickly and lock schools in because of that more than anything.

Frankly, Texas's arrogance and "me-first" attitude" line up quite well with tOSU and Michigan - along with their striving for excellence in both academic and athletic endeavors. Like it or not, they're a lot like us. That's why I want them so badly in the Big Ten.

I disagree, we're splitting money evenly with everyone and not complaining, even though I'm sure the buckeyes earned more than anyone. If we were not sharing money equally, a team like Michigan that started sucking horribly would find it a lot harder to build themselves back up. Look at aTm right now.

 

[MaxBuck]

Pac-16 is every bit as impressive as Sears acquiring K-Mart - the idea that size alone can make a difference.

If Texas joins We Are SanCtions and the rest of the Left Coast Conference, they deserve all the irrelevance they secure for themselves. Hope the Texas legislature realizes where the Horns truly belong.

 

[MaxBuck]

I disagree, we're splitting money evenly with everyone and not complaining, even though I'm sure the buckeyes earned more than anyone.

My commentary about arrogance and tOSU has nothing to do with how we split money with the other conference members. Ask college football fans around the nation who is the most arrogant school in the nation, and a majority will mention us.

You're completely correct in saying we share very well from a financial standpoint with the other Big Ten schools. It helps that we can afford to do just that.

 

[CincyInterloper]

Good points all, Cinci. I am/was a big proponent of UT to the Big Ten, but Texas arrogance and "me -first" attitude is really coming out in spades. I think they really might have been a disruptive and divisive force within the conference, even without their legislature demanding that we take along unworthy schools in bargain.

I honestly think that at least one of the Stanford/Cal/UCLA triumvirate will certainly veto Baylor and probably the OSU/OU/Tech package leaving Texas where? Either they stand up to the legislature and come to the Big Ten on their own--or at worst with A&M--or they're left in what's left of the Big 12 after the P10 takes Colorado and we take Missouri and possibly Nebraska.

If a school has conditions for entry into the Big 10, I say tell them thank you for your interest, but no thanks. No way should The Ohio State University let Texas dictate special terms that compromise the integrity of the Big 10 for entry into the conference. Either you want in as an equal member, or you don't. Same goes for Notre Dame. It's not like the Big 10 needs to add anyone. And even if they did, there are other quality universities lining up for admission.

 

[brutus2002]

Let me be the first to say fuck ND!!! I hope those assholes get stuck in the fucking wind. Stop schedulinbg them in every sport that we can. They can stick their NBC contract up their domer asses. Wouldn't it be Ironic if they ended up having to join the BE after all the other conferences expanding...I'd laugh my ass off.

I say take Nebraska and call it a day. I do not want our conference diluted in football...we already don't play every team in the conference.

Fuck Texas and Baylor...let the Paci 16 happen...why in the hell would we want Baylor in our conference.

Rutgers adds jack and shit except for money...it dilutes the conference in BB and FB.

16 TEAMS ARE WAYYYYYYYYYYY TOO MANY AND WE WILL REGRET IT DOWN THE ROAD.

Nebraska and call it a day...4 of the top 10 all-time programs...3 of the top 5.

 

[ORD_Buckeye]

Frankly, Texas's arrogance and "me-first" attitude" line up quite well with tOSU and Michigan - along with their striving for excellence in both academic and athletic endeavors. Like it or not, they're a lot like us. That's why I want them so badly in the Big Ten.

I have to disagree. Ohio State and Michigan definitely seek to win and dominate the conference on the field. Off the field, I've never heard the slightest rumor that either is not a team player and fully supportive of the revenue sharing agreement and Big Ten rules regarding recruiting and so on.

Conversely, my fear with Texas is that they won't be good citizens off the field, that they'll put themselves and their financial interests ahead of what's best for the conference as a whole. In other words, that they'd be the embodiment of exactly the same divisive and selfish practices behind the scenes that many feared would be the case with the domers.

 

[ScriptOhio]

Let me be the first to say [censored] ND!!! I hope those assholes get stuck in the [censored]ing wind. Stop schedulinbg them in every sport that we can. They can stick their NBC contract up their domer asses. Wouldn't it be Ironic if they ended up having to join the BE after all the other conferences expanding...I'd laugh my ass off.

I say take Nebraska and call it a day. I do not want our conference diluted in football...we already don't play every team in the conference.

Nebraska and call it a day...4 of the top 10 all-time programs...3 of the top 5.

My guess is that if they only take one BIG XII school (and they can't get Texas) it will be Missouri.

Missouri - 5,911,605

Nebraska - 1,783,432

Think dollars here. Missouri has over 4 million more people and probably over 4M more TV sets.

Re: Cable television analyst Mike Reynolds of Multichannel News estimated that the Big Ten is getting a subscription fee of 70 cents per month per subscriber within that eight-state Big Ten region. Outside of that area, he says, the fee drops to 10 cents.
Take the state of Missouri as an example of the profit potential for the Big Ten. The state had an estimated 2.2 million households in 2008. Let's assume that almost all of those have satellite or cable or both. If the Big Ten added the University of Missouri, it could potentially increase those subscriber fees from 10 cents per person to 70 cents. That's the difference between a gross of $220,000 and $1.54 million per month.

Lucrative Big Ten Network could be driving force for expansion - NCAA Football - CBSSports.com

 

[jlb1705]

The more I think about this potential PAC-16, the more I think it won't help out in terms of getting everyone more money, atleast through a television deal. The eastern conference would be Baylor, Tech, aTm, Texas, Oklahoma, OSU, Arizona, and ASU. So you will mostly have all the games you have now, which apparently aren't cutting it so well.

Baylor had 6 games go untelevised. (half their season!!!!)
Tech 3 games, including their matchup against aTm. You'd think that would be a big deal in Texas.
aTm also 6 games. They never won a game that was broadcast and still went to a bowl.
Texas had 1 game on PPV.
Oklahoma also had 1 game on PPV.
OSU had 2 games untelevised.

That's your Pac-16 network right there. Looks like an awesome lineup that the west coast will eat up.

You'll also get games against Arizona teams that will be ho hum. Plus they can't start till after sundown without killing the crowd and players by heat exhaustion. That cut's out most of the eastern and some of the central time zones from watching. Also, are west coast fans suddenly going to partake in eastern division games? Are they going to wake up at 9 to watch the red river shootout? I highly doubt it.

Your big interdivision matchups aren't going to happen very often, if they play 2 games outside of the division, Texas will play USC once every four years. Sure, they can meet up in a conference championship, but that game will also be competing against every other championship game.

The pac-10 is in the same boat as the Big-12 with revenue sharing right now, they are just isolated enough that no one can poach members. USC took home $6.5 million from tv deals in 08, while Washington State received $3 million. I don't think this Pac-16 is sexy enough to draw a bigger contract, or to fund a successful network. The big markets are too distant and culturally different to pull of. They would get a bigger deal from having more teams obviously, but I don't think it would be much more than what all the teams get now.

This.

The whole point of the Big Ten looking at expansion was to add value to their cable network. The Pac-10 does not have a cable network, and with their proposed move what value are they adding to the broadcast rights they're going to sell to an existing network? They won't be making their TV product stronger, just bigger.

The key is not to not look at the teams at the top, it's to look at the teams in the middle. When you have a matchup between Oregon State - Texas A&M, or Arizona State - Oklahoma State, what kind of value does that hold There's a reason that the current conferences from which these two teams origniate have crappy TV deals in the first place... You can't sell those games at 12:00 or 3:30, and you can't sell them on the east coast. That's the kind of value that ESPN/ABC/CBS pay through the nose for, and the proposed Pac-16 wont' have it.

This reeks of a desperation move by the Pac-10, and while it may win them the short term PR battle, it may also lose them the war. I don't think they'll get TV money like the Big Ten or SEC out of this plan, and they won't have that money to offset the exorbitant travel costs that this expansion plan will incur.

Also, while I'm aware that the Texas legislature is driving this in a significant way, the University of Texas in particular would be wise to consider the example of the Dallas Cowboys. There's a reason that Jerry Jones has been adamant in any NFL realingnment scenarios in the past that his team remain in the geographically nonsensical NFC East. It's because he has a much easier time selling "America's Team" if they capture the attention of large eastern markets like New York, Philadelphia and D.C. If the Cowboys were in the NFC South or NFC West they fade into being more of a regional attraction. For the Texas Longhorns, I think the same thing holds. The further west they align themselves the more they restrict their earning potential.

 

[brutus2002]

I understand all the money arguments...

my point is that the B10 should not grow any bigger than 12 team...we need the right 12th team. Nebraska is it.

ND and Texas will be problem after problem

14 or 16 teams dilute the conference...I'm a football fan and would be extremely pissed if they ruin our conference by being greedy.

 

[cincibuck]

Pac-16 is every bit as impressive as Sears acquiring K-Mart - the idea that size alone can make a difference.

Except that Texas gives the Pac 10 the access to the Eastern Time Zone TV market as well as the Texas market. Think geopolitics; Russia and the desire for a warm water port. They've tried everything to break into that market to include putting some of their biggest games, USC - Oregon State, Oregon - Oregon State, on weekday nights. Thursdays, right up there where the MAC, Mountain West and Big East have to play to get TV coverage. With games in the Central Time Zone they can market at the same time as the Big Ten and the SEC. The more I think about the more I see why they're so interested and willing to take on the Sisty Uglers in order to dance with Cinderella.

On the plus side it might give the conference what it needs to make USC play fair.

 

[jlb1705]

Except that Texas gives the Pac 10 the access to the Eastern Time Zone TV market as well as the Texas market. Think geopolitics; Russia and the desire for a warm water port. They've tried everything to break into that market to include putting some of their biggest games, USC - Oregon State, Oregon - Oregon State, on weekday nights. Thursdays, right up there where the MAC, Mountain West and Big East have to play to get TV coverage. With games in the Central Time Zone they can market at the same time as the Big Ten and the SEC. The more I think about the more I see why they're so interested and willing to take on the Sisty Uglers in order to dance with Cinderella.

On the plus side it might give the conference what it needs to make USC play fair.

I don't think the quality (depth) is there in terms of football viewership under this expansion scenario for them to be able to compete in TV on the Big Ten and SEC's terms.

To continue with the analogy, a warm water port for the Pac-10 won't be that big of a deal if their chief exports are going to be vodka and mail order brides.

In the proposed Pac-16, only USC, Texas and Oklahoma can be counted on to bring home the bacon. When they're negotiating their next TV contract, the price they are able to command will be dictated by the whole of the conference, not just those three. 3 truly marketable teams out of 16 just won't get the job done for them by my estimation.

 

[Oh8ch]

When this issue first arose I was of the opinion that we needed to pick up one quality team, do it quickly, and be done with it.


But it has become clear that this is an effort by the Big Ten to position itself for the long term. It is a move that acknowledges long term trends in the Midwest that could lead to the gradual but inevitable decline of the conference. (There are reasons beyond RR that Michigan is struggling to recruit. Why set yourself up as a big name in the Detroit area when they are bull dozing entire neighborhoods?)

Some folks seem impatient that no announcements have been made. Perhaps I have missed it, but the only comments on timing I have seen from the Big Ten are that this will not be complete until next year - the length of this thread not withstanding.

This effort has put pressure on all major conferences to make counter moves. The process is complex and high stakes. Certainly there is a lot of posturing going on. Back room moves and counter moves will be proposed and dropped.

The BTN - which I initially viewed askance - was a bold and prescient idea. We have some clever people on our side.

I am now of the opinion that we need a minimum of 3 schools and would not mind seeing 5. The further south we go the better. Geographical proximity be damned. Traditional rivalries be damned (with one exception of course).


And it takes as long as it takes.

 

[808 Buck]

Geographical proximity be damned. Traditional rivalries be damned

Sign of the times, but that doesn't mean I have to like it.

That reminds me, I have to renew my Big 10 Network subscription. But, I absolutely refuse to buy the WAC 8 (after Boise leaves tomorrow) Network.

 

[OH HSKR FAN]

Well I'm not sure about the rest of you but I'm getting tired of hearing all this expansion talk. Sounds like it will become inevitable though. If anything it is making the offseason go quicker.

 

[woofermazing]

I wonder if it might be better to try for aTm alone if Texas is a must get state. They have a huge alumni base and satellite campuses all over Texas, they would tune in if the team was actually competitive every couple years. It'd be a huge risk, but they would have more money to build their program back to what it was in the past.

I was looking into why the hell the Big12 has so many games not televised at all, not even on PPV...

TV-Radio Notebook: A&M football a hard sell for TV | David Barron | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

"I was disappointed for our fans that the game was not going to be on television," Byrne said this week. "It's an entitlement, as far as most Americans think, to watch any college game they'd like."
"I understand, though, from a network perspective that, given the lopsided scores we've had recently, they're hearing sets click off across the nation and they don't want to risk that. They're going to look for games that will have viewers for longer than they anticipate they will be watching our game.
"I'd like to think we?re going to do well against Tech this weekend. But it (television scheduling) is not my call."
Schedulers considered other options, including putting the game on pay per view or on Fox College Sports or airing it in early-morning or late-evening windows. None of those options, however, made financial sense for Tech, which is opening a new section of about 6,000 seats at Jones AT&T Stadium this weekend and had 2,700 unsold seats as of Thursday afternoon.

"When we're on television here in College Station, we have many thousands fewer walkups," he said. "Sometimes it makes me wonder whether getting paid a couple hundred thousand dollars is worth losing a half-million at the gate. If 10,000 fewer walk up and your average price is $50, all of a sudden you?re talking about $500,000 (in lost ticket revenue)."

The difference between the haves and have-nots in the Big 12 is so ridiculous. No wonder Texas and Oklahoma are so happy in their position, no one else has the money to compete against them on a regular basis.