Big Ten expansion moves ahead

College Search & Selection
1041

<p>Nate Silver’s analysis is interesting. I agree with bluebayou that it almost certainly misses a lot of college football fans who don’t follow it on the internet. This also may be skewed by demographics, and possibly by school. There may be tens or hundreds of thousands of low-income Alabama fans in the rural South who don’t have access to or don’t regularly use the internet, or even if they sometimes use it, don’t turn to it for information about college football. Similarly, there may be tens of thousands of Michigan and/or Michigan State fans unaccounted for in inner city Detroit because their patterns of internet usage don’t conform to Nate Silver’s assumptions. </p>

<p>That said, the data are interesting. Here’s what jumped out at me:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Ohio State and Michigan are the kings of college football. I always knew they were big, and I had a hunch they were bigger than Notre Dame, but this confirms it (no reason to think ND’s demographics would cause it to have more non-internet-using fans).</p></li>
<li><p>Notre Dame is big but its fan base is spread pretty wide and thin. Silver points out this makes it disadvantageous for ND to join a conference, but it also makes ND a less attractive target for the B1G. Hard to see what television markets it delivers for the Big Ten Network that it doesn’t already have. Not NYC; not Chicago or Philadelphia, which BTN already has. Certainly not Boston. And keep in mind it’s not so much TV audience as the fees cable and satellite operators pay to carry BTN in expanded basic service that brings in the big bucks for BTN. Adding ND to the fold might boost BTN viewership in some markets, but it wouldn’t open up new markets. </p></li>
<li><p>A caveat to the above: if ND and Rutgers went B1G, it might open up New York City. As I’ve long suspected, Rutgers has the most fans in NYC, with a 20,9% market share. ND is second with 9.2%. But then you add Penn State (#3, 6.4%), Michigan (#5, 5.0%), and Ohio State (#9, 2.2%) and suddenly you’ve got 43.7% of the NYC college football-viewing market. Yes, NYC is and always will be more NFL-oriented, but it’s just such a big market that it represents a lot of money if BTN can get on expended basic there (which I believe it’s not now, but someone can correct me if I’m wrong). Adding Rutgers and ND would make B1G by far the dominant college football conference in the NYC market. And my guess is Penn State-Rutgers and ND-Rutgers annual rivalry games could boost interest in B1G football in the nation’s biggest market well beyond current levels.</p></li>
<li><p>The other school that I’d be interested in if I were B1G Commissioner is Georgia Tech. Silver’s analysis says Atlanta is college football-crazy, with almost as many college football fans as NYC. Georgia Tech has 1.664 million fans, according to Silver, which is above the B1G’s average of 1.5 million per school, and enough to place it #4 in the B1G, after the top three in the nation (Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State), significantly ahead of Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska, the B1G’s current ##4, 5, and 6. That sounds like a huge money-maker to me. Ga Tech fits the B1G academic profile quite nicely, and as a football-oriented school it’s always been something of a misfit in the basketball-crazy ACC (though in fairness, there are a few other good football schools in the ACC). What’s in it for Ga Tech, you say? Let me count the way$$$$$. Ga Tech’s annual ACC conference payout is probably about half what the B1G schools now get (much of it courtesy of BTN). But if Ga Tech can deliver the Atlanta market to BTN, it would probably more than pay its own way.</p></li>
</ol>

1042

<p>^^ Good analysis, bclintonk!! I agree with most if not all of the points!!</p>

1043

<p>

Your memory is wrong. Mizzou actively courted the Big Ten when it was rumored the Big Ten would expand to 12 members so it could have a championship game. Mizzou was passed over by the Big Ten for Nebraska. Nebraska accepted an invite to the Big Ten on June 9, 2010. </p>

<p>The Big Ten added/poached a member so it could have a championship game for football.</p>

<p>Colorado accepted the Pac-10’s invitation on June 10th - the day after Nebraska announced its intentions.</p>

1044

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>“Thursday morning, Colorado became the first team to officially jump ship from the Big 12, accepting an invitation to join the expansion-minded Pac-10 Conference. Friday afternoon, it was Nebraska’s turn.”</p>

<p>[Nebraska</a> joining Big Ten; Colorado to Pac-10, more likely to follow | Kansan.com](<a href=“http://www.kansan.com/news/2010/jun/09/report-nebraska-join-big-ten/]Nebraska”>http://www.kansan.com/news/2010/jun/09/report-nebraska-join-big-ten/)</p>

1045

<p>So here’s my proposal: B1G adds Notre Dame and Rutgers, cracking the NYC market for BTN. That move pays for itself, and then some. Then you schedule an annual rivalry game between ND and Rutgers in the Meadowlands, a neutral site; each team is the home team in alternating years, and gets the box office and concessions, paying the usual visitor’s fee off the top. This significantly boosts Rutgers’ revenue as well as its visibility in its home market, where it’s currently weak. It also allows ND to play one game a year before its adoring NYC fans without losing out on revenue, thus maintaining and probably strengthening its fan base in its most important market.</p>

<p>Then you do the same thing between ND and Northwestern, with an annual rivalry game in Soldier Field–in Chicago, not in Evanston; most people in Chicago couldn’t find Dyche Stadium . . . er, Ryan Field . . . . if you gave them a week’s notice. Same deal: ND plays once a year before its second-most important market, on the same alternating home team basis so it doesn’t lose any revenue. You flip-flop the schedule so when the Northwestern game is a home game, the Rutgers game is an away game, and vice versa; that way ND is shrinking its South Bend schedule by just one game a year. This would also boost Northwestern’s revenue, and give NU a chance to build a Chicago following. Right now it’s the weak sister of the conference with the smallest fan base and, I imagine, the lowest football revenue, despite being in by far the largest metropolitan area in the B1G. NU has billboards up all around Chicago billing itself as “Chicago’s Big Ten Team,” but people think that’s a bad joke because no one follows NU football except a few NU alums, and most of them went to NU in the days when NU was so bad that the students wore bags over their heads on game days and you’d see highway signs for “Illinois 88” spray-painted to add “Northwestern 0”. But bring in a big annual rivalry game with ND, put it in Soldier Field, and all that could change. I’ll bet there are as many ND-haters as there are ND fans. Some of the haters could become NU fans in that scenario.</p>

1046

<p>^^ Several sources support my story, including an article from your fellow conference member:
[Rocky</a> Mountain Welcome: Colorado officially jumps to the Pac-10 | NittanyWhiteOut - Penn State Nittany Lions Blog](<a href=“FASTPANEL”>FASTPANEL)

</p>

1047

<p>clinton, Notre Dame is not going to develop a special rivalry game with Rutgers and Northwestern! LOL! It already has strong rivalries with USC, the service academies, Michigan and (somewhat) Stanford.</p>

<p>Perhaps you can convince Chicago to play a game at Soldier Field against Northwestern…</p>

1048

<p>Quote:</p>

<p>June 11, 2010</p>

<pre><code>"Big Ten Network Coverage of Nebraska Announcement (including audio of national media teleconference with Jim Delany, Lou Anna Simon, Harvey Perlman, and Tom Osborne)
</code></pre>

<p>Park Ridge, Ill.-- The Big Ten Council of Presidents/Chancellors (COP/C) announced unanimous approval today for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (UNL) to join the Big Ten Conference effective July 1, 2011, with competition to begin in all sports for the 2011-12 academic year. UNL will also seek admission into the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC), which can occur on or before July 1, 2011.</p>

<p>The addition of the University of Nebraska marks the Big Ten’s first expansion since Penn State University joined the conference in June of 1990 and will increase Big Ten membership to 12 institutions for the first time in conference annals. Big Ten Commissioner James E. Delany will join University of Nebraska Chancellor Harvey Perlman and Director of Athletics Tom Osborne on campus in Lincoln, Neb., for press conference at 5 p.m. CT on Friday, June 11."</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.bigten.org/genrel/061110aab.html[/url]”>http://www.bigten.org/genrel/061110aab.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>*Fact: Colorado officially joined PAC-10 on Thursday morning, Nebraska Friday afternoon via press conferences I recall!!</p>

<hr>

<p>Notre Dame has long been Northwestern’s rival. There is even a trophy (The Shillelagh) for the game between the two.</p>

<p><a href=“http://hailtopurple.com/cats11d14a.html[/url]”>http://hailtopurple.com/cats11d14a.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

1049

<p>UCB, Notre Dame’s biggest rivals are, in no particular order:</p>

<p>Boston College
Michigan State University
Purdue University-West Lafayette
Stanford University
United States Naval Academy (lessened of late, but still important)
University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
University of Southern California</p>

<p>Clearly, the Big 10 and Notre Dame have several natural rivalries.</p>

1050

<p>

</p>

<p>UCB, you are correct about the poacher. The “weaker” conference is more questionable. It would be quite hard to find rankings in the last years that support the notion that the Big Whatever was stronger than the Big 12. Even with Nebraska among the Legends and Leaders, you’d be hard pressed to call the Big 10 superior in the latest polls. </p>

<p>TEAM RECORD PTS
**1 Oklahoma (37) 2-0 1471
**2 LSU (14) 3-0 1424
3 Alabama (7) 3-0 1402
4 Boise State (2) 2-0 1309
5 Stanford 3-0 1212
6 Wisconsin 3-0 1170
7 Oklahoma State 3-0 1092
8 Texas A&M 2-0 1043
9 Nebraska 3-0 911
10 Oregon 2-1 899
11 Florida State 2-1 896
12 South Carolina 3-0 891
13 Virginia Tech 3-0 830
14 Arkansas 3-0 781
15 Florida 3-0 669
16 West Virginia 3-0 579
17 Baylor 2-0 521
18 South Florida 3-0 496
19 Texas 3-0 402
20 TCU 2-1 273</p>

1051

<p>Yeah, yeah, yeah…the official announcement was Friday. Let’s just agree to say both were in the works simultaneously.</p>

<p>I agree Alex. I was just saying clinton’s idea for a neutral site game for ND between Rutgers and NU would not be very likely.</p>

<p>

Of course they are…they’re in alphabetical order. That is your MO. :)</p>

1052

<p>xiggi, I didn’t mean weaker in a football sense. I meant in a revenue, market position as a whole. Big Ten was always more stable than Big XII.</p>

1053

<p>Ah OK, Big XII has never been a model of stability, and that is what finally irritated OU enough to call it quits. And this despite the successes on the gridiron.</p>

1054

<p>“Yeah, yeah, yeah…the official announcement was Friday. Let’s just agree to say both were in the works simultaneously.”</p>

<p>You are right!! I stand corrected! It’s actually the fact, too!! With Colorado officially made the announcement on the Friday morning and Nebraska in the afternoon based on my brief internet research…</p>

<p>“Commissioner Scott, Chancellor DiStefano, President Benson, CU Board of Regents Chairman Steve Bosely and CU Athletics Director Mike Bohn and others will hold an official press conference on Friday, June 11, 2010 at 11 a.m. MT at Folsom Field in Boulder, Colo.”</p>

<h2>[Husky</a> Football Blog | Pac-10 makes Colorado move official | Seattle Times Newspaper](<a href=“http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2012079266_pac-10_makes_colorado_move_off.html]Husky”>http://o.seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2012079266_pac-10_makes_colorado_move_off.html)</h2>

<p>“Even with Nebraska among the Legends and Leaders, you’d be hard pressed to call the Big 10 superior in the latest polls.”</p>

<p>Xiggi, the strength of a conference does not lie upon a season record!! There are certainly numerous other factors which made B1G the leaders and legends in terms of football traditions and revenues.</p>

1055

<p>

</p>

<p>What will be interesting to see is if Texas blinks and has some agreement on the Longhorn Network to keep the Big XII intact. OU should start it’s own network. As it stands now, I doubt the Pac-12 would vote to let only OU and OSU come along if UT wasn’t coming. Perhaps Pac-12 invites OU, OSU, KU and MU or KSU and leaves the Texas schools to play with themselves?? But I think KU and Mizzou is a great fit for the Big Ten. I correctly called Nebraska to the Big Ten waaaay back earlier in this thread I believe. ;)</p>

1056

<p>

</p>

<p>Dude, it’s OK to like --or love-- your conference, but do not believe that all provincialism travels well. There are wonderful traditions among “your teams” but that does not mean the Big 10 has cornered the market. </p>

<p>We can spend decades arguing about what constitutes the “strength” of a conference. We could look at the last year, the last five years, or cling to a time when leather helmets were all the rage. </p>

<p>All of us like to look to through the lenses we favor. We do it in Texas as “good” as anyone else. And that is why we have a name for things we do not agree with. We call it BS! :)</p>

1057

<p>Tranghese: Big Ten could be big winner</p>

<p>[Tranghese:</a> Big Ten could be big winner - Big Ten Blog - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/33548/tranghese-big-ten-could-be-big-winner]Tranghese:”>Tranghese: Big Ten could be big winner - ESPN - Big Ten Blog- ESPN)</p>

<p>I also agree and fine with B1G expansion stays at 12.</p>

<p>“but that does not mean the Big 10 has cornered the market.”</p>

<p>Please do not spin my words, I’ve said no such thing! However, know that in life, respect is earned not ask! Unless you also prefer me to refer you as ‘Dude’ from now on, please lower you tone a bit. Thank You! :)</p>

1058

<p>Big Ten = 5 “distinguished”
Big XII - II = 4 “strong”</p>

<p>:D</p>

1059

<p>

</p>

<p>OU and Texas should be considered a good fit for any conference. It becomes a bit iffier when the pack to move becomes a foursome. I also think that the Kansas and Missouri teams “belong” to the Big X(XX.) But then I think that there are plenty of teams that belong in that hodgepodge of a conference.</p>

<p>As far as having a conference of Texas teams, that has proven hard. One has to feel sorry for TCU … so close to a national championship, and they do not seem to create much of a buzz anywhere.</p>

1060

<p>

</p>

<p>What do you expect him to say? Oh, we really shudder at the thought of three fast-expanding conferences. We look with awe at the SEC and the new PAC-16.</p>

<p>Seriously.</p>