Everything I've heard is that Texas to the B10 wasn't a real option.

This is actually what the Big 10 tries to make happen. I figure the B10 will do just that although, strangely enough, most of what I've been reading lately says that it makes MORE economic sense this time around for ND to join then Big 10 then it has in the past, where ND would actually take a loss. So that'll be the interesting one to watch. Ultimately, I still think ND stays independent, even if it means they have to go that way for all sports.

Who else do you think would jump? Nebraska might be the only other option, and I would think they like the current setup.

I think the idea that the Big Ten is out to try and get into the New York market is fan-based or media-based speculation. There is no New York market for college sports. New York is a melting pot for fan bases and there is no school that you bring in that "gets" you the New York market. In addition, New York is more of a college basketball market than a football market. But as much as we love college basketball, the money in conferences comes from football.

Notre Dame is a natural fit but quite honestly doesn't have the cache it once did. Even Notre Dame's contract with NBC is now a market-rate contract, and Notre Dame would probably make money going to the Big Ten while giving up some of its treasured independence.

The Big Ten needs to decide what it wants to be. If it wants to be a "national" conference then it needs to do something like expand to 14 teams and snare Notre Dame, Texas and maybe a Syracuse. If it wants be the SEC of the Midwest, it needs to look at Notre Dame, Missouri and maybe Nebraska.

Definitely. And the Big Ten should know this based on Chicago. Anyone thinking that Northwestern is what delivers that market for them is an idiot.

The goal wouldn't be to dominate the New York market, but to get a decent share of it. If they added Rutgers, it wouldn't simply be for the New York market but portions of the NYC and Philly markets, as well as those portions located in New Jersey.

Also, some of the Big Ten schools have big alumni bases in this area and would be interested in seeing a Rutgers-Michigan or Rutgers-Penn State at the Meadowlands. TV ratings wouldn't be bad.

To gain a ton of revenue wouldn't require the Big Ten to dominate the market, but to get a share of it, which I think is doable.

+1. I've tried to make this point in these threads but I've never been able to do it as well as this.

I don't think it has much to do with getting fans as it does getting the Big 10 network into the NY market since that is the mecca and would be a huge financial windfall.

Three things:

1. True, no one team is going to deliver the New York market, even if Rutgers or Syracuse was currently a major college football power. But that doesn't mean the conference won't benefit at all by having one of those teams. Rutgers' ESPN games have done big NYC ratings numbers...that extra viewership will make its way to the conference's bottom line, even moreso if there's additional premier matchups to sell in the area.

2. You're forgetting the carrier rates for the Big Ten Network. Doesn't it jump from like $0.30 per household to $1.10 per house if the Big Ten has an in-state presence? I'm not caught up on the full particulars of how the NYC area would be treated (Rutgers is closer to NYC than Syracuse, but of course Syracuse is located within NY State), but there's an added benefit there.

3. If this wasn't about grabbing the NY market, why would these schools be in consideration at all? We already know (at least based on assumptions/projections that the researchers have performed) that the analysis has shown that expansion will be profitable for the current members of the Big 10 in that the added revenues from one (or two or three) of these schools will be greater than what the 11 teams will sacrifice in splitting the pie up even further.

Excellent summary of the situation.

I'm too slow.

Isn't the Big 10 network already in the NY market? I've assumed it wasn't but the network's website seems to indicate that it is. They're pretty much everywhere now, including Canada.

And I haven't ever found these numbers, but I'd still bet that Pittsburgh gets more viewers in PA, and Missouri gets more viewers in Missouri, than Rutgers does in NYC.

Rutgers might get a bump when the team is good, but they don't have the built-in guaranteed viewership of other college programs.

No kidding. I think Northwestern is 10 out of 11 in the Big 10 for the number of alums in Chicagoland.

Yep.

It's available in plenty of states, plus Canada. As I said, not only does the revenue stream change when there's a conference team in the state, but you know there will be a fight for the BTN to be moved from the most expanded tier where it currently is, to the lower expanded tier, to the basic tier, all of which carry higher rates.

Here is a really good entry, that gives us a much better picture of the television side of things, from the Frank the Tank blog: The Value of Expansion Candidates to the Big Ten Network « FRANK THE TANK’S SLANT

Checked out Time Warner Cable which covers both NYC and Kansas City. In both cities the Big Ten Network is only carried on the digital sports tier, which has a very small subscriber base. Interestingly, in NYC TWC only carries the Big Ten HD, not the SD version. That means even fewer subscribers.

If you add a Missouri to the Big Ten, I will guarantee you that the BTN moves from the digital sports to the digital tier. I don't think it matters who you add to the Big Ten, in the NYC market the BTN is staying on the digital sports tier. In that single market comparison, the BTN probably makes more money adding Missouri (or Pitt or UConn or West Virginia) than adding a NY area team.

Is it just me realizing it now or is this the point at which FOFC "analysis" of the Big 10 expansion options has officially jumped the shark?

Looking at that link that I posted above, it seems like a lot of us (me, included) have been looking at this the wrong way. Here is the important part:


So, while entering new markets is a key -- it is not the key. A big (or bigger, even) aspect is increasing advertising revenue. They do that by 1.) bringing in teams that have large followings who will watch games and 2.) just adding teams increases the amount of content on the network, giving them more games to televise. And, since the Big Ten already has fixed deals with ESPN/ABC and CBS, any added games (provided by additional teams) just gives more televised games to the Big Ten Network.

This explains why Nebraska has become a little more prominent in these discussions -- they apparently have very good national ratings. As does Notre Dame, obviously.

This guy speculates that a 14-team league would add Nebraska, Missouri, and Rutgers. And a 16-team league would add the above three w/ Notre Dame and Pitt or Syracuse (but probably Pitt due to the geographic and academic fit).

Frank's slant is significantly better than the average layman but there's a couple of things there which don't really match any reality I've ever witnessed.

He's notably overestimating the value of "live sports" on what is essentially a regional sports network. Truth is, ratings tend to vary surprisingly little on regional sports nets for most live events versus random taped programs (coaches shows or whatever). For some quirky reason or another, what holds pretty true for national networks like ESPN is less true on those regional nets & even less impact for college events vs pro ones. {shrug} I've never quite figured that one out myself but I've seen it happen consistently for a number of years.

The other thing that doesn't really add up to me is the 60/40 math split & the reported profits. It'd take more math than I have the interest to do but the figures being reported simply sound too flippin' high to make sense, at least not from spot revenue. Maybe they're making it up on premium packaging (i.e. stuff like title sponsorships for halftime shows, around the conference score tickers, internet revenue, etc) but it still sounds high to me, to the point where I suspect we're all overlooking some revenue stream somewhere.

Any big football game wouln't be on the BTN. That's the thing with the BTN, they usually have shitty games and only alumni or diehards watch it. ESPN/ABC have first dibs on what they want to carry from that conference.

So even if Rutgers gets added, I don't think it makes the BTN a mandatory buy for people in NY. It's already an option for a higher tier package and I'm sure they'll get some more customers who are alumni and fans. But Rutgers doesn't have the kind of pull in the region to make BTN a must on the basic packages. For BTN to accomplish that, they need a team that has more national pull and stronger following that goes outside of just alumni. It's why schools like Notre Dame and even Texas to an extent would make expansion worth it.

I might even go 11. Living in the city, each bar sort of has an allegience and fills up on Saturday afternoon. They fly a flag for the school. I've never seen a Northwestern one but seen tons for every other Big 10 school. When I used to go to the Big 10 tournament, they probably had one of the quietest bases. This city is filled with Big 10 grads and while there are Northwestern ones, they aren't the big sports people.

That doesn't surprise me. Northwestern has about one-half the students of the next-smallest Big Ten university (Iowa, which has 30,000) and less than one-third the largest (Ohio State, with 52,600). Half of Northwestern's students are in graduate school, the highest ratio in the conference.

Then, it's the only private school in the conference, which means a higher percentage of students have no roots in the state (in-state tuition is much lower at public schools, and admissions requirements are lower, except for athletes).

Somewhere, there must be a magic number of fans it takes to gain a "presence" in a market. What the BTN wants is that presence, so it's placed on the basic tier. Maybe Rutgers provides just enough to pressure New York City (and Northern New Jersey, which is also a significant market) cable systems.

The jump to 14 or 16 is troubling. That means you don't see opponents outside your division very often. Which might mean lower ratings for games not involving in-division rivals.

The Big Ten can well afford to be in react mode if other major conferences go to 14 and it works. Because it will be a buyer's market for those schools. The Big East cannot survive that kind of expansion. Either the ACC or the Big XII will be seriously threatened (they would probably combine in some manner, depending on which direction the SEC goes).

Let's say the Big Ten takes Pittsburgh, probably the first choice among the more academically minded. What will the SEC do? It could either go after the ACC (Florida State, Virginia, among others) or the Big XII (Texas and Texas A&M). That decision would break the affected conference, leaving the Big Ten easily able to scoop up excellent candidates (Rutgers, Maryland, Missouri, etc) in whichever direction the SEC goes. There is only room for four super-conferences and the Big Ten is in the catbird's seat.

I do wonder if the SEC would react at all. I am very dubious about going from 12 to 14. Though if you have only four super-conferences, you might as well end the season with a playoff amongst the champions.

The speculation I've see is if the Big 10 goes to 14 or 16 then the SEC will likely follow up by taking a couple from the ACC. The ACC would then pick off the strongest schools left in the Big East.

If something happens and some current BCS schools are suddenly left outside the BCS then the NCAA is opening the door for a lot of shit to come their way. They've been trying to show that they're becoming more and more inclusive, but a major conference reshuffle that makes them even more exclusive will bring heat from government.

Most around the WVU program are expecting something big to happen, but they're also confident that there's a plan in place to make sure WVU is in a BCS conference one way or another.

I couldn't see Virginia being remotely interested jumping to the ACC (nor could I imagine the SEC would have the slightest interest in them). Did you mean Va Tech maybe?

The perfect fit for the SEC among ACC members, which I've said for years, would be Clemson (I've wished them & Vandy would just swap places for a long time). With either FSU or Miami a seemingly likely target as well.

Of course if you do that then the traditionally stronger SEC East gets even more loaded & I'm not sure that you'd get the votes within the conference to add anyone that's perceived as being too much of a threat.

Kevin Harlan was just on local radio here in Kansas City. He said that Notre Dame, UConn, and Pitt have received official offers. He also said that Mizzou and Rutgers both have indicated that they are interested in moving to the Big Ten, but no firm offer for either of them. They will be offered if the Big Ten decides to go to 16 teams (haven't decided yet if they want 14 or 16) or if one of the three schools that were offered turns it down.

I don't see how UConn makes any sense at all. They have an off campus stadium, no reach into either Boston or NYC, and aren't an AAU member.

I know for a fact Pitt doesn't have an offer. It may be contingent on something else happening but if Pitt had an offer to join on the spot they would join.

BTW, Harlan is also Twittering on the topic. Not quite as detailed as his radio discussion, but provides some info.

http://twitter.com/Kevinharlan

I think that a Clemson/Vandy swap makes a ton of sense in terms of geography and conference culture.

I could also see a Kentucky/Fla. St. swap which I think would make a lot of fans happy--though I don't know if Kentucky would want to do it.

Yeah, don't see that one happening.

Several folks are saying UCONN is #12.

Linky?

It's been mentioned a few times on ESPN Radio

Great. Thanks.

If it expands, the SEC will lose their sticktogetherness that it currently enjoys. Right now the SEC schools all love each other. I wouldn't be surprised if Tennessee fans rooted for Alabama over Texas. Other conferences don't share that love. To be honest, I don't really care how many of the other Big 12 schools do. I rooted against Kansas against UNI in the Ford Center in OKC. I root against Texas all the time and against Oklahoma State unless they're playing Texas. I don't really like half of the teams and I don't care what it means for the conference. I'm an OU fan and my allegiances don't spread much further than that. SEC fans are team first, conference second, personal biases third.

I'm trying to stop paying attention to the individual team rumors, because I think they're all nonsense until we here something, but this is kind of an interesting bigger picture article from the NYTimes today:

College Conferences Ponder Expansion and Extinction - NYTimes.com

I always thought something like this would make sense:

"Eventually, Crouthamel (former Syracuse AD) said he saw the Big Ten, the Atlantic Coast Conference, the Southeastern Conference and the Pacific-10 forming four 16-team superconferences and leaving the umbrella of the N.C.A.A. (Just imagine the fight between the SEC and the Pac-10 for Texas.) He said that those leagues would form their own basketball tournament to rival the N.C.A.A. tournament."

If the Big 10 goes to 16 teams, it's all over for college sports as we know it.

The BCS schools don't need the smaller schools. It's not like a professional league. They can still play them in non-conference games and such, but they don't need to invite them to the party. It makes sense for the BCS schools, who are just in a different world than everyone else, to have their own, seperate, college sports mega-conference, where they can crown their own champions, and run their own product, as they see fit.

I'm kind of sad to see all these conferences turn into big mega-conferences. While the Big East may be the best basketball conference out there, I think it's lost a lot of its identity by bringing in so many schools from different regions.

I'd say that's probably true for the majority of fans in that specific case.
But I don't know if that's as much conference related as it is geographically related. I mean, absent that you'll still hear SEC fans rooting for ACC teams that they share geography with and vice versa over teams from other regions.


Eh, it's not quite that absolute. For example, no amount of conference ties (via UT) get me to pull for LSU or UGA over anybody. Not Notre Dame, not USC, not North Korea.

When the ACC expanded, it lost a lot of its identity, lost its status as the best basketball conference in the country, and didn't really see the gains in football that motivated the whole expansion.

So, yeah, I understand that the big $$ is in football motivated expansion into mega-conferences. But it does come at a price.

All that said, it will probably be easier once the Big 10 goes to 16 teams. The other conferences will follow suit very quickly (eat or be eaten). And we can get on with the new landscape.

The KU athletic director, Lew Perkins, stated the same thing last week during a Q&A session. He suggested that college presidents in BCS conferences have been openly discussing creating their own entity to rival the NCAA and he believes it will happen in some form. So it's definitely an idea that seems to be picking up steam.

I don't get UConn at all. Why not Boston College if you think you have a shot at Notre Dame and want to go into New England? I'm skeptical.

Any question of raiding the Big East v. the ACC?

Its going to lose more of its identity when it ceases to exist.

I think the BE will continue after this round, but will almost certainly be without a football component, so it will lose Syracuse, Pitt, WVU, UConn & Rutgers to the 64 team megaconference setup.

I think that Providence, Villanova, Georgetown, Marquette, St. John's, DePaul, Seton Hall would continue as a basketball conference, and he the best conference in now irrelevant NCAA basketball, but Notre Dame will find it very difficult to continue as a member.

This poses some interesting questions, not the least among them being which 64 teams get brought, and which four conferences continue. Obviously, the Big East is toast. But, there are 11, 12, 12, 12 and 10 members of the other conferences, 8 Big East teams, and Notre Dame. That's 66 schools. Plus, its conceivable some of the Mountain West teams (Utah, BYU) might bring more to the table than some of those 66 (Northwestern, Connecticut, maybe even a Syracuse, Mississippi St., Baylor).

But Time Warner is not the only cable provider in the area. New Jersey itself would be a very large TV market, and the state has both comcast and cablevision-which carry the Big Ten network.

This would seem to be very low on the totem pole, but I read that one of the attractions of UConn was that it already has a DI ice hockey team and that is one of the sports that the Big Ten (do they already have hockey as a Big Ten league?) and the BTNetwork want to feature prominently.

Seems a little shaky, as I'm sure Syracuse or Pitt or any one of a number of other schools could get a hockey program up and running, relatively quickly, if they have the Big Ten's media money to assist.

Blame Notre Dame.

Looks like most of the B10 schools (that have hockey) play in the CCHA.
2009-2010 Men's D-I Standings :: USCHO.com :: U.S. College Hockey Online

That's Michigan, Michigan State, and Ohio State.
Minnesota & Wisconsin are part of the WCHA.

Doesn't look like any of the other B10 schools play D1 hockey currently.

edit to add: Of the 5, only 2 finished in the top half of their respective league last year, while UConn was 7-27-3 playing in Atlantic Hockey. Maybe they're looking at a B10 conference playing as a conference & wanted a non-startup that wasn't really any better than what they already have playing?

Yeah Swaggs, I've already heard talk that Rutgers would upgrade their club level hockey team immediately and the basketball arena expansion/renovation plans could be changed to making it a mixed-use arena for hockey too(especially with Big 10 money coming to the rescue).