Economic benefit of each proposed team for Big 10

Donate To GopherHole

Frank has been all over the expansion talk. If you've got lots of time (you'll need it, he writes long, well argued posts) its worth reading all of his B10 expansion stuff.
 

This is truly alarming. I thought all the people talking about a 14 or 16 team conference were blowing smoke. 16 teams is far too many. Rivalries would be diluted. With 16 teams it would be more like two loosely affiliated conferences. A 12 team conference wouldn't do damage to the intimacy of the league. I think this analysis undervalues the potential apathy involved in a 16 team conference. Diluting rivalries turns off fans. Right now the Big Ten, Pac-Ten, Big 12 and SEC boast demonstrably higher quality of top teams and depth through the conference (from top to bottom). Last year the bottom of the conference (Indiana and Michigan) were both dangerous enough to push a BCS game winner to the wire. Currently, every Big Ten team is dangerous.

And now you want to add 3 (?!) schools from a football conference ranked 7th in quality behind the WAC? (no offense to the WAC).

Now, let's suppose the Big Ten adds 5 teams including three Big East teams, Missouri and Nebraska. How long do you think it is before Texas goes to the SEC (and brings Oklahoma and A&M with it?).

You think the SEC hype is bad now? Imagine if Texas and Oklahoma joined the conference? The Big Ten would be way more a whipping boy than it was in 2007-2008. ESPN will talk about the SEC champ as de-facto National Champions from spring ball until the Title Game is played every year.

Eventually, this deterioration in overall quality and intimacy will hurt the financial bottom line. Why would the richest most powerful conference in college sports risk the kind of irrelevancy that will accompany mediocrity?
 

AhliBobwa said:
This is truly alarming. I thought all the people talking about a 14 or 16 team conference were blowing smoke. 16 teams is far too many. Rivalries would be diluted. With 16 teams it would be more like two loosely affiliated conferences. A 12 team conference wouldn't do damage to the intimacy of the league. I think this analysis undervalues the potential apathy involved in a 16 team conference. Diluting rivalries turns off fans. Right now the Big Ten, Pac-Ten, Big 12 and SEC boast demonstrably higher quality of top teams and depth through the conference (from top to bottom). Last year the bottom of the conference (Indiana and Michigan) were both dangerous enough to push a BCS game winner to the wire. Currently, every Big Ten team is dangerous.

And now you want to add 3 (?!) schools from a football conference ranked 7th in quality behind the WAC? (no offense to the WAC).

Now, let's suppose the Big Ten adds 5 teams including Missouri and Nebraska. How long do you think it is before Texas goes to the SEC (and brings Oklahoma and A&M with it?).

You think the SEC hype is bad now? Imagine if Texas and Oklahoma joined the conference? The Big Ten would be way more a whipping boy than it was in 2007-2008. ESPN will talk about the SEC champ as de-facto National Champions from spring ball until the Title Game is played every year.

Eventually, this deterioration in overall quality and intimacy will hurt the financial bottom line. Why would the richest most powerful conference in college sports risk the kind of irrelevancy that will accompany mediocrity?
Click to expand...

There is some who believe that by going to these super conferences it will end the BCS and force a playoff system which many favor.
 

If we expand to 16, why not just add two more, get to 18, and then split into two seperate 9 team conferences. 8 conference games and 4 non-conference. Seriously though, it does seem odd to have divisions that are as big as conferences. At that size, you're going to become more disassociated with teams from the other division.
 


Excellent article. I actually really love his 16 team and 14 team scenarios. Notre Dame, Nebraska, Missouri, Pitt and Rutgers would be fantastic, Here's to hoping!
 

GoAUpher, does the 4/19 article by Frank the Tank change your thinking

to what you originally wrote below?

GoAUpher said:
Inigo: I get what you are saying and I agree that religion has historically been part of their national following. But you are VASTLY overestimating the numbers included in that national following. BTN is currently getting $1.10 per subscriber for all cable subscribers in the 8 Big Ten states. BTN is also on the basic cable package in this footprint. Notre Dame alums/fans would have to have a huge presence in a market in order for a cable company to put BTN on their basic package. If BTN isn’t on a basic package then the number of subscriber fees it collects drops significantly. The amount that the network can charge for ads also drops significantly.

The BTN already has access to the number 3, 4, 11, 15, 18, 23, 25, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41, 54, 65, 68, 70, 72, 73, 84, 85, 88, 91, 99, 101, 102, 107, 110, 115, 116, 117, 127, 134, 135, 139, 146, 152, 180, 182, and 191 TV markets in the US. For those keeping track that’s 39 of the 210 national TV markets equaling almost 26 million households (which is approx 22.5% of all TV households in the US) [Data via latest Nielson numbers]. As of first quarter 2009, they also had basic access in over 18 million DirecTV households which brings their total up to approximately 38% of all TV households in the US (44 million total). I'm not including Dish Network numbers as I can't find notes on how many of their approx 13 million subscribers are on the higher level packages that include BTN. But I would note that this also further decreases the number of TV households without BTN and increases the % of homes that BTN already reaches.

This next part is estimations by me using the numbers from above. But if the 4 Big XII schools and ND needed to increase revenue by 46% to maintain the current $22 million per school level, it looks like they’d need to guarantee that approximately 20 million new TV households would get BTN on their basic package. That would be over ¼ of the remaining TV households in the US.

The Catholic Church has approximately 67 million members in the US. Even if you stipulate that the 20 million new households the B10 needs only have 1 person in them, you’d still need 1/3 of all Catholics in the US to demand to see the BTN. Since you already have large numbers of these Catholic viewers living in the Big Ten footprint or watching DirecTV, the percentage of Catholics from the remaining parts of the country required would actually be higher.

The numbers just don’t support your assertion.
Click to expand...

My response at the time was:

Originally posted by Inigo Montoya
and my apologies to your employer if you are doing this on company time. Very well written and logical with use of supportive references. Based on those facts alone the only BCS teams that could be added to the Big 10 conference to keep revenue on par with what we have now in addition to Notre Dame would be Florida, Texas, USC and North Carolina. The Big 10 Network is bankrolled by Rupert Murdoch and the the New Corporation who plays second fiddle only to the Mickey Mouse network in terms of sheer size. Don't think they won't pay a premium to take Notre Dame football away from NBC.

I still contend, and GoAUpher's fact may oppose it, that Notre Dame would still be the needed link to catapult the Big 10 and allow them to cannabalize a conference such as the Big 12. I'd be willing to bet that News Corp. would pony up the GDP of Sierra Leone to get Notre Dame onto their payrolls. But that is just one person's with time on his hands opinion. Now I know how Wren feels sitting here writting the dissenting opinion. I promise I'll stop my tirade to pillage to the Big 12 North.
Click to expand...
 

It does somewhat Inigo. I was of the "new subscribers" school of thought. Assuming Frank's commenter's experiences hold more true (and I don't doubt them in the least) then my line of thinking is less powerful. I'd still argue (and Frank's commenter's numbers would seem to back me up) that your assertion that ND could singlehandedly pay for the addition of any other teams to the league is still inaccrurate. However but the scenario listed in Frank's latest post (60/40 split on new revenue with the 60 being advertising dollars) still seems to make ND an attractive candidate, possibly even moreso then before (since you can guarantee eyeballs for ND games regardless of what TV market they come from).
 

GoAUpher said:
It does somewhat Inigo. I was of the "new subscribers" school of thought. Assuming Frank's commenter's experiences hold more true (and I don't doubt them in the least) then my line of thinking is less powerful. I'd still argue (and Frank's commenter's numbers would seem to back me up) that your assertion that ND could singlehandedly pay for the addition of any other teams to the league is still inaccrurate. However but the scenario listed in Frank's latest post (60/40 split on new revenue with the 60 being advertising dollars) still seems to make ND an attractive candidate, possibly even moreso then before (since you can guarantee eyeballs for ND games regardless of what TV market they come from).
Click to expand...


I think taking into account the 60/40 rule that he discusses and the data he presented that Mizzou should be well down on the list of potential expansion candidates. Within the Big 12 alone they trail Texas, Nebraska, and Kansas as far as potential revenue they could bring to the Big 10.
 



This maybe a stupid question but do you know if there is away for the Big 10 to buy out News Corp. part of the BTN? You would think that would be a great move especially because News Corp. owns 49% of the BTN and therefore gets 49% of the profit assuming they have a simple set up like that. Think about that each school gets 49% more BTN money. Thats a nice chunk of change.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom