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.