fivewords wrote: so is uva still a done deal??

This situation is fluid.

Didn't see this posted here, but Purple Book Cat over on the Northwestern Rivals site (you may recall PBC was one of the chief propagators of the Texas and Notre Dame to the Big Ten straight from a source in Big Ten headquarters rumors) has basically come out and said all his info was BS.  His story is that his "source" lied to him.  Maybe he was making it up the whole time, who knows.

My friend went over the top in telling me from the start that Rutgers would not be part of any deal. He laughed in my face afterward, and said "what do you expect?" That thing was kept under wraps for a very long time and only leaked to ESPN after it had been an absolutely done deal. So no, I have no idea what to expect anymore. Further, I just moved from Chicago to Denver to work with the USOC, so no more beers with my friend. It has been a fun ride, but my insider connection to the inner workings of the Big Ten is now exactly 1,200 miles away. 

He's a prick anyway, never should have listened to him. And you all never should have listened to me!

http://northwestern.rivals.com...p;tid=184040569

I actually just recently ventured there earlier this week because I had been thinking PBC was unusually quiet WRT expansion this round. Hard to say if what he was hearing was made up by him or someone else or if it was good info on a situation more fluid than he realized. Cant deny the traffic he brought to that site though. I remember his Texas ND thread went from like 2300 views to 20000 views in a few hours

lowiq wrote: dc both of the last two schools the sec added were aau members.

i dont think the average sec football fan gives a rip about a schools academic ranking but the conference presidents and slive do.

the biggest differance athletically in the expansion is the end goal caused by the tv affiliation.

because the btn is totally about the big ten and pays more in footprint states all they appear to be looking for is large populations.

because the sec will be partnered with espn they are being pushed to land schools that will interest people in AND outside the footprint.

if espn wants to make it national they need to have schools that people in the nonsec states will tolerate being on their cable bill.

My comment regarding academics wasn't meant to be a criticism of the teams the SEC has added, if was more of a feather in the cap of the B10 who thus far hasn't compromised in that regard.  I disagree that all the B10 is looking for is large populations, Nebraska isn't a populous state and more importantly all of those schools culturally and academically fit into the conference exceptionally well.

hidownthai95 wrote: I actually just recently ventured there earlier this week because I had been thinking PBC was unusually quiet WRT expansion this round. Hard to say if what he was hearing was made up by him or someone else or if it was good info on a situation more fluid than he realized. Cant deny the traffic he brought to that site though. I remember his Texas ND thread went from like 2300 views to 20000 views in a few hours

He certainly made for a good read but it never passed the smell test.

---------------------------------------------
--- coopercougar wrote:

hidownthai95 wrote: I actually just recently ventured there earlier this week because I had been thinking PBC was unusually quiet WRT expansion this round. Hard to say if what he was hearing was made up by him or someone else or if it was good info on a situation more fluid than he realized. Cant deny the traffic he brought to that site though. I remember his Texas ND thread went from like 2300 views to 20000 views in a few hours

He certainly made for a good read but it never passed the smell test.

---------------------------------------------

So...his friend lied to him about Texas/ND but knew about Rutgers? That's what I got when I read it. His friend was legit with info, just lied to him about it.

WinchesterBUCK wrote:

---------------------------------------------
--- coopercougar wrote:

hidownthai95 wrote: I actually just recently ventured there earlier this week because I had been thinking PBC was unusually quiet WRT expansion this round. Hard to say if what he was hearing was made up by him or someone else or if it was good info on a situation more fluid than he realized. Cant deny the traffic he brought to that site though. I remember his Texas ND thread went from like 2300 views to 20000 views in a few hours

He certainly made for a good read but it never passed the smell test.

---------------------------------------------

So...his friend lied to him about Texas/ND but knew about Rutgers? That's what I got when I read it. His friend was legit with info, just lied to him about it.

He was being used for propaganda all along. That was always my contention was that he has a legitimate source but was being used as a puppet. Problem is, I don't think he realized it (apparently).

lowiq wrote:

keep in mind that wisconsin just lost the best coach they have probably ever had.

 
Wow. 

NOB I think you quoted the wrong post I was responding to a previous lowiq post about the stature of TA&M and Arkansas.

---------------------------------------------
--- NewOrleansBuckeye wrote:

TheOhioArsenal wrote: Lowiq I agree, now if only they (neb,psu) would start performing more like their reputations promised (except when playing OSU of course.)

I have one question when did Wisconsin lose this so called best coach they ever fen' had.
He got out knowning his days were over with period!!
he will last at Arkansas because any team who could put up with the Nutt case and a few others they had before and after, will fen' love this new ass-hole!!

---------------------------------------------

Nothing like facts to straighten out this discussion....

NorfolkVaTiger wrote: Average home game attendance, 2012:

Texas A&M 87,014
Missouri 67,476
Rutgers 49,188
Maryland 36,023

Delaney is betting that cable operators will continue to fork over large premiums for two teams in large viewing areas that can't draw paying fans to their home games.  If he's right, those are fine additions, at least from an accounting perspective.

Missouri had their worst year in a long time and still drew a respectable home crowd, and it's not like Texas and Missouri are small states either (which may be driving an SEC network in the near future).

Too early to say how any of the additions pan out, but I wonder how much longer bundled cable packages with high premiums for niche channels will continue.  If that model doesn't work out, are Rutgers and Maryland good additions as football programs on their own merit?

stechs02 wrote:

 

THE ALL MIGHT TEXAS A&M                       90 wins                 71 loses

followed by Texas A&M. Rutgers, Maryland, and Missouri are all on par with each other. PERIOD!! Delany is winning the expansion war and is at worst tied with the SEC & Slive.

But no one in NY will care!

rayb678 wrote:

NorfolkVaTiger wrote: Average home game attendance, 2012:

Texas A&M 87,014
Missouri 67,476
Rutgers 49,188
Maryland 36,023

Delaney is betting that cable operators will continue to fork over large premiums for two teams in large viewing areas that can't draw paying fans to their home games.  If he's right, those are fine additions, at least from an accounting perspective.

Missouri had their worst year in a long time and still drew a respectable home crowd, and it's not like Texas and Missouri are small states either (which may be driving an SEC network in the near future).

Too early to say how any of the additions pan out, but I wonder how much longer bundled cable packages with high premiums for niche channels will continue.  If that model doesn't work out, are Rutgers and Maryland good additions as football programs on their own merit?

stechs02 wrote:

 

THE ALL MIGHT TEXAS A&M                       90 wins                 71 loses

followed by Texas A&M. Rutgers, Maryland, and Missouri are all on par with each other. PERIOD!! Delany is winning the expansion war and is at worst tied with the SEC & Slive.

The additions of Maryland and Rutgers will bring in new markets and more money, but it will also bring more football and basketball content to the B1G Network, and thus more advertising dollars.  The addition of 2 schools means 1 more live football game per week to show on the network, in addition to the replays.  There could be triple-header B1G Saturdays coming.

But the conditions look good for A&M going forward.  Reminds me of Florida 30 years ago.

coopercougar wrote: Texas A&M has as much potential as anybody, but when talking about their past you have to talk about the elephant in the room. Go look at their best seasons and then go looking through the NCAA's infractions database and you will see a direct correlation. A&M has not since WWII had a sustained period of success that did not result in NCAA sanctions of some kind. That means absolutely nothing going forward, but it has to be mentioned when looking back.

The problem with Nebraska is they really haven't been king for quite a while now and they have a little TV footprint!

stechs02 wrote:

NorfolkVaTiger, you are comparing data that’s not even close to being relevant. Typical SEC....... You are comparing Missouri & Texas A&M’s first year in the SEC against Rutgers (currently in the Big East) Maryland (currently in the ACC). If you don’t think Rutgers and Maryland’s attendance will go up when traveling fan bases such as OSU, Penn State, Michigan, Nebraska, and all of the other BIG 10 fan bases that are ingrained in the North Atlantic Coast pack their stadiums then you’re delusional. I’m sure Missouri and Texas A&M’s attendance went up because of the same effect of joining the SEC. Would you agree?

 

It’s also pretty tough for Rutgers and Maryland to have attendance numbers like Texas A&M and Missouri when their stadiums are much smaller. Please see below. Once Maryland and Rutgers join the BIG 10 and their average attendance increases to capacity they will expand with the new money they are going to be making.

 

Maryland (54,000)

Rutgers (52,454)

Missouri (71,004)

Texas A&M (83,002)

 

You also forgot our other addition of Nebraska who had an average attendance of 85,000+.

 

Adding Rutgers and Maryland has nothing to do with attendance results. It’s purely cultural, academic, and TV sets. To say attendance factors into the rationale behind bringing them in is silly. To say that their current attendance trends will continue in the BIG 10 is silly. And to say that they aren’t going to be making enough money because of their attendance is silly. Everything is linked. It’s a simple math equation. BIG 10 = $$$$$$$$ in academics, $$$$$$$ in network revenue, ++++++ in attendance,  ++++++ in facilities, ++++++ in coaching, ++++++ in overall success as an institution.

Cancelling B1G games can't be good for a merger!

fivewords wrote: so is uva still a done deal??

But Texas is a huge state and UT is fading fast in a conference of weaklings while A&M has joined the strongest conference.  Things are changing quickly!

WinchesterBUCK wrote: It can be argued that Mizzou was a poor add and the only reason A&M did anything is due catching lightning in a bottle with Johnny Football. Both have been non-factors in football for a long time.

---------------------------------------------
--- 1984gator wrote:

The B1G and SEC employ very different strategies.  Both want viewer dollars but the SEC has developed a very big qualitative lead! Recruiting is at the core of this as is the culture of football in the south.   Product quality is more important to the SEC's expansion plans than it is apparently the B1G.  The ACC and BEast went their route and failed!

coopercougar wrote:

OriginalDCBuck wrote: 
Where did I say that cable markets weren't a consideration at all?  Of course they were important in adding those two schools but the weren't the only ones.  If they didn't fit the academic profile of the conference they wouldn't have gotten admitted.  You act is if some how our motives aren't as noble as the criteria the B12 has used in the past or that they have some grand plan outside of improving football or increasing revenue.  The B10 is one of the few conferences who can largely say that for us expansion isn't just about adding football programs or athletics.  I'm certainly not the only one kidding myself, I can't wait to see how the B12 is going to save college football with their ACC alliance.  I'm sure they aren't concerned about TV revenue and since it doesn't involve cable subscribers it is a much better cause.

I've said all along that Big XII expansion, IF it occurs, will be solely about TV dollars.  But unlike what the SEC and Big Ten are doing, expansion driven almost solely by conference network revenue, the Big XII will have to expand in a way that makes it's top tier games more marketable.  In other words, where the Big Ten and SEC are largely expanding for tier 2 and 3 content with the hope for teams that eventually improve and make the tier 1 content more valuable, the Big XII would have to do basically the opposite. 

As for academics, I never discounted what you said, but they're a happy bi-product, not in any way a driving force.  The Big Ten didn't add Maryland and Rutgers for their academics, they just happened to be the ones in large media markets that met the academic standards.  And the Big Ten should certainly be praised for having those standards.  Put Maryland and Rutgers in small states with few subscribers and they are not in the Big Ten, simple as that.

---------------------------------------------

The SEC isn't buying the past, its investing in the future.  No team in the B1G or B12 could have beaten A&M this year.  Texas will not outrecruit A&M.  The competitive landscape changed for them virtually overnight.  The Texas market for college football is far more valuable than Maryland or Rutgers.  College sports in the NE are treated like HS.  

Missou adds to the SEC's Basketball competition and before you make remarks you'll regret, go back and tell me how many championships the B1G has produced in basketball over the last couple decades and compare that to the SEC's total.  Somehow the SEC delivers in the tourney while the B1G crashes every year.

va1bucksfan1 wrote:

1984gator wrote: The B1G and SEC employ very different strategies.  Both want viewer dollars but the SEC has developed a very big qualitative lead! Recruiting is at the core of this as is the culture of football in the south.   Product quality is more important to the SEC's expansion plans than it is apparently the B1G.  The ACC and BEast went their route and failed!

 
Please tell us about all of Missouri's glorious football achievements.

Please tell us about all of Texas A&M's glorious football achievements while they were in the Big 12 (before they got to slice through SEC teams like a hot knife through butter).

Well excuse me that expansion was more than 20 years ago and don't look now but South carolina is better than any team in in the B1G.  While you're at it, check out attendance.  Arky's made a few SEC title games too!  Wasn't it just a couple years ago that your conference champion barely beat the SEC 4th place team, even withillegal players.  Wasn't the victory vacated?

NewOrleansBuckeye wrote:

1984gator wrote: The B1G and SEC employ very different strategies.  Both want viewer dollars but the SEC has developed a very big qualitative lead! Recruiting is at the core of this as is the culture of football in the south.   Product quality is more important to the SEC's expansion plans than it is apparently the B1G.  The ACC and BEast went their route and failed!

Give me a fen’ break on this!!

If quality is the core just how did South Carolina or Arkansas make it in your first expansion?  Yea!! at one time Arkansas was a good team, fen’ South Carolina was never any damn good and until just recently broke the 500 mark in wins. Missouri and Texas A&M brought what the sec needed the most a couple teams with a pulse when it comes to education and A&M is a decent football team.

 

I’ll give you recruiting, hell it don’t take a fen’ rocket scientist to figure out where the speed players are at. Now culture is another fen’ story!!!

 

Culture- “a group of people who share beliefs and practices”.

 

Now as far as football and culture, your getting a little confused here, the Big-Ten States have 243 different (4-year) colleges who play football compared to 145 SEC States and that includes Texas and Missouri who make up 39% with 56 of those. Plus we can add 19 more when Maryland and N.J join us. Maybe your just thinking Big-Name football teams  well thats just fine but culture is more than just a fen’  Bama or Tennessee, etc, etc.

 

Now; lets fen’ talk Florida ; my first job out of college was at RCA Data Processing in West Palm Beach , bought a house in Jupiter. Yea this was before segregation; the only team worth taking about was Miami, whom by the way up until 1980 only had six All-Americans, your school the Gator’s, when I first moved there didn’t have any, Steve Spurrier would give Florida its first All American in 1966 a year after I moved to Jupiter.

 

The only thing Jupiter bragged about, and I missed him (3 years older) was Burt Reynolds (born in Michigan) went to Florida State, but he went to Palm Beach HS not Jupiter HS, and I never did figure that one out!!

 

If you graduated in 1984 you probably only seen three All-Americans ( Marshall , two times) during your stay in Gainesville . That is not fen’ culture that’s called fen’ LUCK!!  

To be a B1G fan is apparently to live well in the past as in prior lifetimes ago!

NewOrleansBuckeye wrote:

lowiq wrote: bucks actually texas a&m has been pretty good overall the last 4 decades.

since 1975 they rank 17th among bcs schools in winning %.

during that span they have won 297 games.

to compare to some great lakes teams so big ten fans can compare notre dame has won 302 or 5 more over those 38 years.

some semi comparable big ten programs-
iowa 258 or 39 less
wisconsin 255 or 42 less
michigan st 233 or 64 less

seasons ending ranked-
a&m 18
iowa 15
wisconsin 11
michigan st 8

all time they are ahead of those programs to.

if they had been in the big ten they would have been the best of the non ohio st and michigan schools.

not elite but pretty good.

Not so fast my friend!!

It’s really hard to say just how A&M would have done if they were in the Big-10; however; just playing Big-10 teams they are 6-9 (40%) and that’s against 8 of the teams. I think they would fall behind both Penn State and Nebraska and would be somewhere around #5 with Michigan State in the pecking order.

 

And I’m sure glad you did your research and only went back to 1975 because since 1946 thru 1974 they had 22 losing seasons and out of those 7 winning seasons only three bowl games (back when the Big Ten could only send one team to a bowl and the SWC and SEC was sending 6 or seven each) that’s not saying very much about this program.

 

Now: are they just a good (damn good) team because of the QB (another fen’ Auburn ) or can they continue winning, after life with out John ny football? If they can--- I personally think that now, with Texas not doing well and as long as they keep Brown, A&M will continue to get better (just look at this years recruiting #3, never mind their up to 32 recruits with a week to go, that's just the sec way), which in turn is going to hurt the LSU’s and Arkansas’s who recruit the State heavily and they will or can become the second best team in the SEC-W and just possibly the third best in the SEC.

 

I would not be surprised if in the next decade 80% of the sec conference championship games (if they still have em’ there about as useless as “teats” on a bull) will always be between; Florida or Georgia vs. Bama or A&M with Bama and A&M coming out on top most of the time.

Some things just never change, everyone has their cycle!!
If you don't believe me!! ask your wife

 

.

UGABuck wrote:

Expansion has an impact on TV Revenue in two ways: Basic Cable and Advertising Footprint. By example, adding Rutgers increases Basic Cable Fees A N D Advertising Footprint. The latter means that any Network bidder is going to bid more for the B1G contract because they have more Impressions. That's Business 101. To argue the addition of Rutgers doesn't impact both the Cable Fees and Network Contracts should simply exclude you from any future posting on the subject.

Here's the simple thought experiment. Would ABC or Fox not bid more for the B1G with Rutgers? Comcast, Verizon, et al are going to pay for the BTN just like Fox or ABC will pay more for Tier 1 rights.

I understand visitors from other conferences feel like JD is running expansion, forcing lesser conferences into lower valuables positions and generally setting the pace. He is. However, don't spend too much time here trying to tell us otherwise. Notre Dame fans used to do that.

the networks are already showing the B10 games in every mkt, including NJ and every other state in the nation.

i doubt showing RU vs Iowa instead of Wisc vs MSU in that same time slot, is going to move the ratings meter all that much in NJ, let alone the rest of New England, let alone have any effect on the national ratings' number. 

RU-Iowa isn't Yankees vs Red Sox, or Patriots vs Jets, and national networks aren't going to think otherwise. 

since all the big cable and satellite guys have national contracts with the programmers, i'll assume Disney already gets the same per sub fee for the ESPNs from Comcast in NJ as they do for subs in Wisc or Mich or Ohio or Ind.

adding RU won't change that.

any impact expansion schools will make on future 1st tier negotiations is purely subjective at best.

and no media guru alive can quantify exactly what, if any, impact adding RU could have on future negotiations yrs from now.

that said, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, tier rights are already national. as in ALL 50 STATES NOW,

just understanding the basic concept that everything the B10 does already has a 50 state audience, and revenues from all 50 states, should cause anyone with any understanding of numbers what so ever, to realize that no one school can increase revenues enough to justify a full share of the already national revenue model.

if the B10 audience and revenue model were relegated to the current B10 9 state footprint, then one could project that adding RU could arguably increase that revenue model proportional to cover 1 equal share.

but the B10 audience and revenue model isn't confined to the current footprint.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

therefore they can't. 


even if someone were terrible with numbers, just having common sense and knowing B10 revenue at all tiers is already based in a 50 state model, not a 9 state one, should set off a red flag that incrementally increasing revenues some percentage in any one state, can't offset a full share of that 50 state model. 




and btw, i don't think JD is running expansion. i think News Corp is.

BTN is News Corp's network, not the B10's. (wherein possibly lies the real key behind all this insanity).

JD is merely News Corp's bitch.

and whether all this is really about BTN, or Fox1, or speculating on future tier 1 negotiations, or the future national champ play off, (which Delany has tried to undermine or control for how long?), regardless, i think Delany and the school "powers that be" that are following his lead, have totally lost perspective and their sense of priorities.

they've also lost sight that they are merely caretakers of a 100 plus yr old conference.

not owners.

Are you aware of the different rates the BTN gets for footprint states vs non footprint states?  From your post below it appears you don't realize the BTN gets significantly more per cable subscriber in states within the footprint, than in states not within the footprint.

That's a big driver in adding RU and MD, and, assuming the current revenue model continues, will in fact add significant revenue to the BTN.

On a separate topic, not all of the big cable providers have a contract with the BTN.  I live in Hampton Roads, and Cox Cable (with about 400,000 households in this area) does not carry the BTN at all, not on any tier of service.  Simply not available.  Not sure about other areas that Cox services, but they are one of the largest cable providers in the country. 

rocknhoops wrote:

UGABuck wrote:

Expansion has an impact on TV Revenue in two ways: Basic Cable and Advertising Footprint. By example, adding Rutgers increases Basic Cable Fees A N D Advertising Footprint. The latter means that any Network bidder is going to bid more for the B1G contract because they have more Impressions. That's Business 101. To argue the addition of Rutgers doesn't impact both the Cable Fees and Network Contracts should simply exclude you from any future posting on the subject.

Here's the simple thought experiment. Would ABC or Fox not bid more for the B1G with Rutgers? Comcast, Verizon, et al are going to pay for the BTN just like Fox or ABC will pay more for Tier 1 rights.

I understand visitors from other conferences feel like JD is running expansion, forcing lesser conferences into lower valuables positions and generally setting the pace. He is. However, don't spend too much time here trying to tell us otherwise. Notre Dame fans used to do that.

the networks are already showing the B10 games in every mkt, including NJ and every other state in the nation.

i doubt showing RU vs Iowa instead of Wisc vs MSU in that same time slot, is going to move the ratings meter all that much in NJ, let alone the rest of New England, let alone have any effect on the national ratings' number. 

RU-Iowa isn't Yankees vs Red Sox, or Patriots vs Jets, and national networks aren't going to think otherwise. 

since all the big cable and satellite guys have national contracts with the programmers, i'll assume Disney already gets the same per sub fee for the ESPNs from Comcast in NJ as they do for subs in Wisc or Mich or Ohio or Ind.

adding RU won't change that.

any impact expansion schools will make on future 1st tier negotiations is purely subjective at best.

and no media guru alive can quantify exactly what, if any, impact adding RU could have on future negotiations yrs from now.

that said, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, tier rights are already national. as in ALL 50 STATES NOW,

just understanding the basic concept that everything the B10 does already has a 50 state audience, and revenues from all 50 states, should cause anyone with any understanding of numbers what so ever, to realize that no one school can increase revenues enough to justify a full share of the already national revenue model.

if the B10 audience and revenue model were relegated to the current B10 9 state footprint, then one could project that adding RU could arguably increase that revenue model proportional to cover 1 equal share.

but the B10 audience and revenue model isn't confined to the current footprint.

NOT EVEN CLOSE.

therefore they can't. 


even if someone were terrible with numbers, just having common sense and knowing B10 revenue at all tiers is already based in a 50 state model, not a 9 state one, should set off a red flag that incrementally increasing revenues some percentage in any one state, can't offset a full share of that 50 state model. 




and btw, i don't think JD is running expansion. i think News Corp is.

BTN is News Corp's network, not the B10's. (wherein possibly lies the real key behind all this insanity).

JD is merely News Corp's bitch.

and whether all this is really about BTN, or Fox1, or speculating on future tier 1 negotiations, or the future national champ play off, (which Delany has tried to undermine or control for how long?), regardless, i think Delany and the school "powers that be" that are following his lead, have totally lost perspective and their sense of priorities.

they've also lost sight that they are merely caretakers of a 100 plus yr old conference.

not owners.