Discussion in 'Colorado Football Message Board' started by Sportsfan101, Apr 20, 2010.
Let's see. All of the following have been listed as targets for the Big 10 in their expansion:
Yes, every single one of those schools has been mentioned at one time or another when the issue of Big 10 expansion comes up. Count me in the "I'll believe it when I see it" camp when it comes to whether the cobs end up there.
Indeed, Rutgers seems like a headscratcher because of their weak athletics. However, they bring strong academics and a large media market.
I don't know about 'lock', but i wouldn't be surprised to see kNU in the B10
You think their physical location is going to "bring" the NYC market? Their academics are middle of the road. Certainly not to the same level of Wisconsin & Michigan.
The NYC market isn't a college sports market.
yeah, i was going to question that. i dont see the location bringing those sets with them automatically. perhaps the big 10 feels that over time the sets will come as rutgers gets more intrenched in the big 10 and traditions and rivalries are established that bring in the people/sets and interest.
ESPN radio today was saying look for the Big10 to add 3 teams. None of the schools they talked about included anyone from the Big12. Mainly they talked about Uconn and Pitt, with Rutgers as the third possible.
Nubs only hope for a Big10 invite is if Big10 moves to a super conference with 16 teams.
I'm sure ESPiN will start looking at some of the Big XII teams as possible Big Televen candidates, just as soon as somebody tells them that there is a conference called the Big XII....
Well ESPN just posted a blog story saying Beebe doesn't think he's going to be contacted by Delaney saying that the Big 10 has any interest in any Big 12 schools. So either he is completely clueless or they're targeting an Eastern expansion...of course its Beebe we're talking about so figure 10-1 odds he's just clueless. I have a feeling everybody is %$$##% lying through their teeth right now at those BCS meetings to try and position themselves and there is not a lot of trust out there. People are sending out a lot of chaff right now.
What a load of crap. :lol:. kNU doesn't fit the Big10 model at ALL.
You must not be very bright. If you were, you'd have done your research beforehand. First off, New Jersey is the 10th most populous state. With or without NYC, they certainly deliver more TV sets than most other candidates. Secondly, NYC is a pro town, but you think NOBODY watches college sports? How about the Big Ten alums living there? Even if a fraction of NYC decides to upgrade to the BTN, that number is likely bigger than all of Nebraska. Finally, Rutgers is ranked #66 academically. Nobody ever said they were in Michigan's range. However, they are 11 slots ahead of CU, so be careful about calling it middle-of-the-road, because in doing so you are also throwing our alma mater under the bus. Rutgers is only ranked ahead of 3 other Big Ten schools, but this is still better than 10 of the 12 Big XII schools.
When St John's was relevant in men's BB they had a huge following in NYC. People jumped on the Rutgers bandwagon when they had that undefeated season going a few years ago.
Hell, they lit up the Empire State Building in support of the Scarlet Knight's FB and women's BB teams.
Nebraska and Iowa have a natural rivalry that would be perfect to balance the Big 10.
In the "West", they would have Nebraska-Iowa / Wisconsin-Minnesota / Illinois-Northwestern.
In the "East", they would have Michigan-Michigan State / Indiana-Purdue / Ohio State-Penn State.
If they went to 16, they'd have a ton of options. They could either raid the Big 12 North for Kansas and Missouri, or look to the Big East with Pitt, UConn, Syracuse and Rutgers being the strongest candidates, or snatch Boston College.
This should get very interesting.
I wish whatever is going to happen would just f**king happen already.
GOD I HOPE SO!!! And I hope CU goes to the Pac 10.....just so that I can sit back and watch Texas, A&M, and OU all **** down their legs as the North will implode this South driven league!!!!!!!!!!
Speaking of weak athletics, CU should be included in that one. What's more, the people in charge don't care. Let me say, it's a low priority. I'm scratching my head trying to think what makes CU attractive to the PAC 10? There's a large alumni base out there but getting them off their asses to see a CU football game is another matter. If you attend CU road games you know what I'm talking about. I attended the Big 12 basketball championship at the Sprint center this year - and I'm dead serious - I only ran into about half a dozen CU fans. It's almost as bad at away football games - it's mostly friends and families of the players and some die hards.
don't worry folks I have inside info that Bohn has started a nationwide search for a new conference and his phone is ringing off the hook. His list of candidates is narrowed down to 3 Mountain West, Big Sky, and the Rocky Mountain Athletic Conference. Apparently he re-used the same search as he did for a basketball coach.
Here is an article by Mandel where he picks Nebraska and Missouri to go to the Big 10:
hmmm. Don't see how mandel saying that helps your cause. He's about as reliable as the average poster here (or worse).
What an offensive thing to say. The folks posting on this board are the as good as they come....
As good or better than a Woody Paige. I think there should be a contest to see who is the bigger idiot, Paige or Talkins. Awesome!
No, actually it is "Allsome", if I have been following close enough. I still haven't picked up why, though.
Somebody please refresh my memory...why am I supposed to give a rat's ass what conference Nebraska ends up in?
I agree that Nebraska to the Big Ten makes a lot of sense for many reasons and have felt that they have not been taken seriously by the national media in that regard, but I see several problems in that analysis.
Frank the Tank is GREAT for getting serious discussions about the subject, but his blog is almost like that footballcoachscoop.com site throws out so many "locks" and "heard it hear first" type claims that one of them is bound to stick.
The first thing that I noticed is that the entire analysis done to determine the Big Ten Network revenues is flawed.
First, he uses the total distribution to Big Ten members in order to calculate the break-even needed from any new members. That is fine, but that number includes football bowl distributions and NCAA basketball distribution monies as well, it is NOT all from the football TV package. The $214 million gross revenue is the more accurate number to use, and the Big Ten takes a share of that as well. The members then get the additional $4 to 5 million in distributions from bowl revenue sharing (after travel costs) and basketball distributions, the Big Ten Network does not "own" those revenues and therefore Fox News Corp does not get 49% of those monies and neither does the ABC/ESPN or CBS packages ($102 million per year total).
Second, the poster uses a $0.36/month cable carry rate, which is significantly lower than any credible source I've seen for the "home markets" of the Big Ten footprint. Those numbers have been reported as being between $0.75 and $1.10 per subscriber. This means that the number used to determine the advertising revenue from the Big Ten Network is significantly skewed. The BTN did distribute around $112 million to the Big Ten member-owners, this means that Fox received a similar distribution thus giving a total of approx $214 million in profit distribution. I am not convinced (although getting such data is not possible that I know of) that the BTN gets 60% of its revenue from advertising.
Third, the poster ignores the ABC/ESPN football TV contract. Any major nationally significant or popular games (read high TV ratings draws) get played on the ABC/ESPN networks. Nebraska-Iowa or Nebraska-Wisconsin, Nebraska-Ohio State, or Nebraska-Penn State would NOT be played on the Big Ten Network anyway. This further reinforces my belief that the BTN does NOT produce $160 million in advertising revenues.
Fourth, the poster ignores that the cable carriers that pay the fee to the BTN control a large portion of the advertising revenues. That is how they make money. They contract with the BTN to put their channel on their local basic-expanded or expanded-digital package and pay a $0.75 per subscriber fee (or $1.00 whatever). Then the cable company goes around with their ratings charts and signs up advertising partners or including it in their current advertising clients mix of channels. The BTN might have some availability to sell this advertising but it is marginal and most likely limited to sponsorship revenue, which I am certain is NOT anywhere near $160 million.
Fifth, all of this analysis is looking at it from the TV/Conference standpoint and could just as easily get shot down by the President and Chancellors of the member universities who do not wish to associate Nebraska academics with their $5 to $6 billion a year research partnership. Academics truly dwarf the athletic revenues in the Big Ten/CIC. It will matter.
Despite all of that, I still think Nebraska is a strong candidate for Big Ten expansion. They are at least on par with Iowa in many respects.
I didn't really follow all that analysis, but what I took from that is Nebraska is a terrible place to live or go to school, the girls there are ugly, nobody wants them in their conference, and they should change their name to North Texas A&M if they hope to have any sway in what's left of the Big 12 (which will change its name back to the SWC).
Another article that should be of interest to CU fans as well: http://blogs.mercurynews.com/colleg...the-zipper-idea-and-the-150-million-question/
Even if the Big-10 expands - It doesn't look like a Pac-10 expansion is a forgone conclusion unless the University Presidents are conviced that adding additional teams will increase revenue by nearly 50%.
Which begs the question coming from a CSU guy to CU fans...if CU were to remain in the Big12 North what would your reaction be to this sort of realignment to the Big 12:
IF there is Big Ten expansion that takes Nebraska alone from the Big 12, then I would think BYU would get the invite to replace them in the north division and become our new "rival".
Adding Salt Lake City/Utah is at least comparable if not better numbers wise to Lincoln/Omaha/Nebraska for TV markets. Ratings wise the Cougs won't match the Fuskers but would be close enough. Better basketball and still would travel well to other stadiums.
Boise State would join the MWC to replace BYU and things would keep rolling along.
This has been my concern from the beginning and that I have posted about here before -- there is no other team with Colorado that will justify expansion by creating enough $$$ to offset having 2 more mouths to feed. I've talked about Nebraska being a team that the Buff should be courting to go to the Pac 10 -- and I wouldn't be surprised if the Big 10 snatches Mizzou to watch CU cozy up to Nebraska or Kansas in an attempt to get the 12 Pac to expand.
Sorry, I just don't see CSU as a B12 school, small stadium, low attendance, no real competitiveness in BB or FB. I know CSU has had CU's number, especially since the Turkey landed in Boulder, but taking the long view, I don't see the B12 expanding, and replacing a MU, CU, NU or KU to another power conference would mean adding in TCU, Memphis, BYU, Utah before CSU would get the nod, heck they might even consider AFA before CSU.
JMHO, not meant as a slam, in some ways the CSU FB program is showing much more promise than CU and CSU had spectacular run '98-02, but realistically, that was an anomaly.
Separate names with a comma.