Big Ten and other Conference Expansion

[ScriptOhio]

I assure you - the SEC doesn't need more money.

Warren Buffett, Carl Icahn, and Ruppert Murdoch don't need any more money either; but they sure as hell act like they want more.

Greed is good!

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

I still have not seen an argument that more teams necessarily means more money per team. I see a great deal of rhetoric that not expanding = bad; but not much that convinces me this is necessarily true.

More teams in other conferences = more people watching other conferences. True enough

But does it necessarily mean more people watching per game? I can see some potential rationale for people saying this might be true (rationale that no one has offered by the way), but I see nothing that convinces me it will materialize. Until someone finds a way of putting more hours into the week, I'm watching the Buckeyes and maybe one other game each week. Whether the B1G adds more teams has no effect whatever on that.

 

[kinch]

In the end, failing to expand and remain competitive would be like Wendy's saying "We've created the worlds best hamburgers. We will never, ever, add a single item to the menu until Dave Thomas comes out of the grave to tell us so".

Hey man, no reason to bring Wendy's into this. If I ever eat fast food, I eat Wendy's out of Ohio pride. And their menu doesn't need changing. Oh, I suppose I eat Taco Bell when visiting home, but that isn't fast food, it's fine cuisine to me.

I agree with you though. I hope the Big Ten is talking to schools now. We need to be proactive. I would still like Missouri, Notre Dame, and two of the following: Georgia Tech, Maryland, Rutgers, and Syracuse.

 

[Mrstickball]

Hey man, no reason to bring Wendy's into this. If I ever eat fast food, I eat Wendy's out of Ohio pride. And their menu doesn't need changing. Oh, I suppose I eat Taco Bell when visiting home, but that isn't fast food, it's fine cuisine to me.

I agree with you though. I hope the Big Ten is talking to schools now. We need to be proactive. I would still like Missouri, Notre Dame, and two of the following: Georgia Tech, Maryland, Rutgers, and Syracuse.

Wendy's is great, but the three best things they've ever made are the Double Stack (new), their new fries, and the vanilla frosty. Likewise, our enjoyment of the conference will be much better if we have better teams to play. Imagine snagging ND and another cream-of-the-crop football or basketball team.

 

[korchiki]

I want to throw something out there. We have always heard that certain schools would be banned from being extended an invitation because current schools hold the advantage of being in a more prestigious conference.

Iowa - Iowa State (Will always be viewed as Fredo)
Ohio State - Cincy (obviously they don't make it for other reasons but tOSU will never let another school from Ohio into the B1G
PSU - Pitt

Are there any other schools that this would apply to? I can't really think of anyone for Minnesota, Mich/Mich St., Wisconsin, the Indiana school (ND would trump all).

Does Nebraska have a natural rival they wouldn't want to allow entry?

 

[ScriptOhio]

Latest reports are that The SEC was set to invite A&M, but the had to stop and put in a stipulation that all other Big 12 schools waive the right to bring legal action, because Baylor is now threatening to sue.

 

[Woody1968]

I want to throw something out there. We have always heard that certain schools would be banned from being extended an invitation because current schools hold the advantage of being in a more prestigious conference.

Iowa - Iowa State (Will always be viewed as Fredo)
Ohio State - Cincy (obviously they don't make it for other reasons but tOSU will never let another school from Ohio into the B1G
PSU - Pitt

Are there any other schools that this would apply to? I can't really think of anyone for Minnesota, Mich/Mich St., Wisconsin, the Indiana school (ND would trump all).

Does Nebraska have a natural rival they wouldn't want to allow entry?

Penn State has been lobbying FOR Pitt, not against them.

As for Nebraska, I don't think there is a problem. There is no other FBS school in the state, and their main rival for many years was Oklahoma. Nebraska isn't really a hotbed of recruiting, although the High Schools there used to play the option style of football that UNL played up until the end of the 1990s. They probably wouldn't mind the addition of Oklahoma or Missouri for the sake of rivalry, but I can't see them being happy with the idea of Texas joining.

 

[Woody1968]

Wendy's is great, but the three best things they've ever made are the Double Stack (new), their new fries, and the vanilla frosty. Likewise, our enjoyment of the conference will be much better if we have better teams to play. Imagine snagging ND and another cream-of-the-crop football or basketball team.

Wendy's is only good in Ohio - Every time I go here in New york, it is terrible. Plus the new fries suck.

 

[Muck]

Does Nebraska have a (un)natural rival they wouldn't want to allow entry?

Texas

 

[Mrstickball]

I still have not seen an argument that more teams necessarily means more money per team. I see a great deal of rhetoric that not expanding = bad; but not much that convinces me this is necessarily true.

More teams in other conferences = more people watching other conferences. True enough

But does it necessarily mean more people watching per game? I can see some potential rationale for people saying this might be true (rationale that no one has offered by the way), but I see nothing that convinces me it will materialize. Until someone finds a way of putting more hours into the week, I'm watching the Buckeyes and maybe one other game each week. Whether the B1G adds more teams has no effect whatever on that.

Bigger matchups = more eyeballs = more cash. No one is arguing we go out and get the first 4 colleges that would want to join, but that we get 4 that will actually benefit us. That is why we have to be the first to strike. There are only so many colleges that will add to the B1G, rather than be the median of success in the B1G in both sports successes, and revenue generation. Additionally, winning teams do better in terms of viewership - thus the need to add good teams. I'll throw out this ESPN link to Notre Dame's contract and viewship statistics: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=3452161 - essentially, they doubled their TV audience when they were 9-3, 10-3 and the like vs. when they were 3-9. There is likely little difference between such metrics for ND and the rest of the Big Ten which again pushes the argument that we need bigger, better teams. The SEC makes a killing being the premier conference, and there should be no harm in trying to be better than them. Success on the field with good teams will translate to more money for the conference.

Additionally: what do you think earns the conference more money: Nebraska-OSU or Indiana-OSU? Before we expanded, it'd be Indiana-OSU. Additionally, the CCG adds a huge amount of cash via an extra, tier-1 game. If we add more teams with large TV footprints and fan bases, then they are going to want to watch their team on BTN against other B1G schools. Therefore, it adds money to the pot.

For example, Notre Dame has a 5-year, $50 million USD (est.) deal with NBC to showcase their games. That amount of money is based on the perceived advertising revenue that can be generated plus NBC's markup. Now imagine that same $50 million USD of worth being added to the conference plus all the additional viewers' worth of content through the additional BTN shows about Notre Dame - something NBC makes nothing off of.

People like big games and big stories. With huge fan bases of certain teams we can grab, BTN and B1G can add significant revenues to the conference. Such monies will not materialize if crappy teams are added - thus the desire to strike first for new teams.

I'll throw out a scenario we discuss: B1G adding Georgia Tech. If GT has the Atlanta Metro area effectively locked up for viewership, the Big Ten would effectively add more TVs than the entire state of Wisconsin - assuming there were no additional TVs added anywhere else. If each TV set is worth about $0.36 per month (FrankTheTank's estimated value), then such a team is worth about $24 million per year, assuming no sets outside of Atlanta were added. Compare that to say.....Syracuse that may draw 1/3rd the TV value, and you see why bigger schools in certain locations are more valuable. Throw in population changes in the US that are favoring states outside the rust belt, and there is even more perceived value in expanding the footprint to the south and west.

 

[DaddyBigBucks]

Lots of words... still not convinced.

The bigger match-ups argument I can buy; but the more teams you add, the less often you play everyone. This gives you diminishing returns at some point. I see no reason why those diminishing returns don't happen when you go from 12 to 14. I'm not saying they do; but the suggestion that going from 12 to 14 is good because it means bigger match-ups only holds water in the years when you actually get the match-ups you want. And what if moving to 14 means we lose the intersectional games that we've had the last few years? Then the net addition is zero.

As for your hypothetical of "locking up the state of Georgia". I'm not buying. You only lock up the TV sets that are watching GT right now, and that's not everyone in the state by a long shot and TV execs, advertisers and their customers know it. You are adding more viewers, but I'm still not convinced you're adding more viewers per game.

Having said all that, my mind is still open on this. There may be an argument that sways me; but I have yet to see it.

 

[kinch]

Missouri has: St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield markets to an extent. Football starved state. Missouri has 5+ million people.

Kansas has: kinda Kansas City. Not sure on football starvation, great in basketball. Kansas has 2+ million people.

Mizzou has ~250k alum, 33k current enrolled, 94th US News ranking, AAU status, $900+ million endowment, and the UM-Health Care system.

Kansas has ??? alum, 30k currently enrolled, 104 US News ranking, AAU status, $1000+ million endowment, and the KU Medical Center (located in Kansas City).

So they are really really similar school wise, not similar population/market wise. I don't know athletically. Missouri has been pretty good in a few sports, but so has Kansas. The kicker could be KU basketball, but does that trump markets.

Personally, I like Mizzou.

Just a weird note: has Kansas grown a lot? If they have 33k enrolled, but only 250k alum, are their life expectancies less than 35?

 

[Woody1968]

Well, it is all going to come down to Oklahoma at this point. If they go to PAC, Baylor's potential lawsuit against the SEC looks even stupider than it does now. I'm fairly sure the SEC will take WVU as number 14, to keep the East/West balance.

 

[Mrstickball]

Lots of words... still not convinced.

The bigger match-ups argument I can buy; but the more teams you add, the less often you play everyone.

Yes, but the conference can ensure that the big boys are always scheduled. Given the line-up for conference games since Nebraska joined, the Big Ten is focused on ensuring as many high-quality matchups as possible.

This gives you diminishing returns at some point. I see no reason why those diminishing returns don't happen when you go from 12 to 14. I'm not saying they do; but the suggestion that going from 12 to 14 is good because it means bigger match-ups only holds water in the years when you actually get the match-ups you want. And what if moving to 14 means we lose the intersectional games that we've had the last few years? Then the net addition is zero.

Again, you assume that new teams are watering down the matchups. I would argue that matchups against scrubs are hurting the conference right now, and new blood featuring better perennial teams will bring in more revenue. The Big Ten essentially has 4 very good teams (OSU, Penn St., Michigan, and Nebraska), 4 mediocre teams (Wiscy, Michigan St., Iowa, and Illinois) and 4 poor teams (Minnesota, Purdue, Indiana, Northwestern). These are generalizations, but you get the point. If we add more very good teams, the frequency of good matchups increases, not decreases. Instead of getting 2-3 doormat games a year, it decreases to 1-2 thus increasing viewership.

As for your hypothetical of "locking up the state of Georgia". I'm not buying. You only lock up the TV sets that are watching GT right now, and that's not everyone in the state by a long shot and TV execs, advertisers and their customers know it. You are adding more viewers, but I'm still not convinced you're adding more viewers per game.

Thus why I said Atlanta Metro. Additionally, advertisers are going to look at that Orange Bowl game with Iowa-GT and its 26% viewership increase from the year prior and know that both teams can bring in the eyeballs when needed.

Having said all that, my mind is still open on this. There may be an argument that sways me; but I have yet to see it.

If you can't see it now, your only going to see it when BTN reports massive increases in revenues from adding more and more TV sets. Right now, there is no reason more sets are going to get added to the network. There are only two ways more are going to get added: The Big Ten is a huge draw because they are popular and beating down on everyone, or there are more teams to follow.

Blah.

 

[Gatorubet]

Folks, this is a conference expansion thread.

Please go re-live 1861-1865, whatever you want to call it, somewhere else.

The one time I forget a smiley....