ESPN Take Two: Big Ten's next expansion move

Donate To GopherHole
It seems that TV revenue is driving the expansion, I kind of think this is going to be sh$t or get off the pot time for Notre Dame and Texas. They have to make a decision on how they want to go forward in Football.

I think the Big 12 is going to break up, The Big East could add some of those teams and get rid of the non football members. If Notre Dame wants to remain independant in Football they are going to have to join what will probably be a mostly Catholic league in basketball or join the Big Ten in all sports. Texas will be at a crossroads, go independant in Football (find a conference for basketball, it won't be one of the BCS conferences) or join the Big Ten.

The Big East has TCU starting next year, maybe Iowa State, Baylor, and Texas Tech the following year.

I think it will be interesting to see what somebody like Xavier and Gonzaga would do if a Catholic league is created.

Pretty good basketball conference with:

Villanova
St Johns
Gonzaga
Xavier
Seton Hall
Georgetown
Marquette
Depaul
Notre Dame
 

JackiO said:
Here is a taste.

http://mnhockeycentral.webs.com/bigtennumbers.jpg

only thing remotely close in the big ten is Wisconsin and they are 1/4 our profit.
Click to expand...
My bad for some reason I thought you meant they were the most profitable of all programs and teams not just hockey. Do not know why I thought that but I did but still thanks for the link. Also based on that link and the one posted earlier in the thread it looks like hockey brings in more profit than football, impressive.
 

year of the gopher said:
Why would it be hard to believe that Gopher hockey is the most profitable college hockey program in the country?
Click to expand...
didn't think he meant just hockey for some reason, apparently my reading skills aren't what they used to be. Must be the booze...
 

DrunkGopher said:
My bad for some reason I thought you meant they were the most profitable of all programs and teams not just hockey. Do not know why I thought that but I did but still thanks for the link. Also based on that link and the one posted earlier in the thread it looks like hockey brings in more profit than football, impressive.
Click to expand...

edit: misread you.
 

DMB123 said:
Every word of this post is so wrong it's laughable. You don't know anything about your own state.
Click to expand...

It may seem like the entire state is hockey crazy, but it isn't true. In my hometown, no one was interested in hockey. A couple towns down the road, they had a hockey team, and were pretty interested in hockey. Hockey fans really love their hockey, but it isn't the most popular sport in the state. Minnesota has a strong claim to being the "State of Hockey", not because it is the state's favorite sport, but because it is the state were hockey is biggest.
 


RodentRampage said:
It may seem like the entire state is hockey crazy, but it isn't true. In my hometown, no one was interested in hockey. A couple towns down the road, they had a hockey team, and were pretty interested in hockey. Hockey fans really love their hockey, but it isn't the most popular sport in the state. Minnesota has a strong claim to being the "State of Hockey", not because it is the state's favorite sport, but because it is the state were hockey is biggest.
Click to expand...

So you are telling me a rural town that grows up with no hockey has a relinquished interest in hockey and that means the rest of the state doesn't like hockey as much as they think they do. Yet a town that actually has a team loves it. Hmm. Interesting concept.
 

RodentRampage said:
It may seem like the entire state is hockey crazy, but it isn't true. In my hometown, no one was interested in hockey. A couple towns down the road, they had a hockey team, and were pretty interested in hockey. Hockey fans really love their hockey, but it isn't the most popular sport in the state. Minnesota has a strong claim to being the "State of Hockey", not because it is the state's favorite sport, but because it is the state were hockey is biggest.
Click to expand...

I do think some Minnesota hockey fans (regardless if they are fans of the NHL, local WCHA team, high school team, etc.) don't realize that hockey is a bit more "regional" than what they assume. I too grew up in a Minnesota location where hockey didn't exist so it wasn't followed very closely. I'd easily agree it isn't the biggest sport in the state. However, the comments that DMB is highlighting are far over the top in the other direction. Hockey is very big in Minnesota. Bigger here than in any other state. To suggest 99% of the people don't care about it is completely incorrect. It is also incorrect to suggest UofM hockey isn't profitable.

To make a long story short... I agree with you 100% but also understand and agree with what DMB was getting at.
 

I have not seen anything credible that shows U of MN hockey makes money or loses money. JackiO put the link of a website that said it got its data from a 3rd website, when I checked that website I did not find those numbers. I would simply be interested in seeing the exact numbers as a gopher fan.
 

SDGopherFan said:
I have not seen anything credible that shows U of MN hockey makes money or loses money. JackiO put the link of a website that said it got its data from a 3rd website, when I checked that website I did not find those numbers. I would simply be interested in seeing the exact numbers as a gopher fan.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but I do not have enough time to look for that right now...later tonight if I have time I will quench your thirst :cool02:
 



JackiO said:
So you are telling me a rural town that grows up with no hockey has a relinquished interest in hockey and that means the rest of the state doesn't like hockey as much as they think they do. Yet a town that actually has a team loves it. Hmm. Interesting concept.
Click to expand...

Of course. Hockey fans are certainly wild about their hockey, and this can lead them to think that hockey is more widely loved than it is in Minnesota. Football and basketball are more widely popular, nearly every high school and college in the state has these two sports. Even in small towns where they don't even have their own school (and thus no local football team) still have their TVs on watching the Vikings on Sunday. I'm not bashing hockey, I've been to a few games. Hockey might be a factor in expansion, but I don't think it would be a very large factor. I'm not saying that hockey is unpopular in the state, it's quite popular. Just not as widely popular as some hockey fans think.
 

SDGopherFan said:
I have not seen anything credible that shows U of MN hockey makes money or loses money. JackiO put the link of a website that said it got its data from a 3rd website, when I checked that website I did not find those numbers. I would simply be interested in seeing the exact numbers as a gopher fan.
Click to expand...

I can't find the source SD, but when there was all the "hubbub" about schools not making money from sports, Minnesota was listed as one of the few (less then 6?) BCS schools that made money from an Olympic sport. Don't take my word for it, but I gave up looking to go sit on the deck.
 

While I personally wouldn't mind seeing ND join the conference, I would probably say Hell Has Frozen Over if Notre Dame joined the B1G.

1) Independent status would be erased and with that, lesser flexibility in their scheduling,

2) "Special" provisions / Accomodations from the BCS and the BCS $ (which they don't have to share w/ member schools) would be gone,

3) They are 16-15 vs the B1G over the last 10 years (not including any games with Iowa or Wisky and including a 1 game loss to tOSU in 05 Fiesta). The reality of competiting in the conference would bring the donors back to earth, bruise their egos, and frustrate them. Bottom line: They (frustrated boosters) would close their checkbooks.

Maybe I'm way off base here but I just don't see it happening.
 

wonder when ND's TV contract is up, wonder if there ratings have dipped the past few years since they really haven't been compettative on the national scene. TV rules, so if their ratings dip and the contract money isn't as much I bet they come calling and I'm pretty sure the big ten or the sec knows it.
 




SDGopherFan said:
wonder when ND's TV contract is up, wonder if there ratings have dipped the past few years since they really haven't been compettative on the national scene. TV rules, so if their ratings dip and the contract money isn't as much I bet they come calling and I'm pretty sure the big ten or the sec knows it.
Click to expand...

I believe Notre Dame's contract is up in 2015 which also happens to be when the Big Ten contract with ESPN/ABC is up I believe.
 

Marc Cuban (love him or hate him) had an interesting blog on not going to super conferences. His points are:

1. Adding schools does not mean more TV money since you have to divide equally and then game quality is diluted.
2. It will create scheduling nightmares because too many games will get pushed to very early or very late time slots.
3. Importance of geographic rivalry games goes down the tubes
4. Teams that were leaders in smaller conferences are now lost in the shuffle of super conferences
 

It is up in 2015, that is correct. They get $9 million a year being the only game on that Network the entire season (with exception of the Grambling / Southern game).

B1G paid out $22 million / school last year according to most reports.

ND would have to do a cost - benefit of:

1) Remaining independent - getting $9 million (or more once renegotiating), scheduling who they want, and keep their donors' checkbooks open or

2) Join B1G, regionalize your competitive schedule, get $22 million, and close their donors' checkbooks.

In other words, I think they will be / should be better Wins / Losses remaining Independent than they would be as a conference school.

The key question is, how much could they expect to take in (from donors / boosters) if they went through a B1G schedule.
 

Schnauzer said:
I do think some Minnesota hockey fans (regardless if they are fans of the NHL, local WCHA team, high school team, etc.) don't realize that hockey is a bit more "regional" than what they assume. I too grew up in a Minnesota location where hockey didn't exist so it wasn't followed very closely. I'd easily agree it isn't the biggest sport in the state. However, the comments that DMB is highlighting are far over the top in the other direction. Hockey is very big in Minnesota. Bigger here than in any other state. To suggest 99% of the people don't care about it is completely incorrect. It is also incorrect to suggest UofM hockey isn't profitable.

To make a long story short... I agree with you 100% but also understand and agree with what DMB was getting at.
Click to expand...

Put very nicely. In Minnesota hockey surely doesn't have the widespread appeal that football and basketball does but to suggest that 99% of people outside the Twin Cities couldn't care less about it is laughable.
 

JackiO?

the google spreadsheet you have attached, where is this from? What website did you get it from? can you provide a link to a website where I can look it up as well as any other sports. not that I don't believe you but that looks like a spreadsheet my 4th grader is doing.
 

Couple Questions

JackiO said:
Here is data from 2007 that has the same number of profit that is listed in the first link I used providing more credence to the data. As you can see, in 2007 no one is close to the Gophers in hockey revenue.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pwrV-D-_tTUSpdM2lWCeTdQ
Click to expand...

Hey JackiO! I might be reading it wrong but in the first link the men's hockey team had a profit of $32 million. This link it is down to $4 million. That's a big difference?

Off thread topic but I'm curious of your opinion as a very casual hockey fan...why has the Gopher hockey team fallen off the face of the earth? Do they need a new coach?
But the guy they got won a national championship...what's going on there? (I'll hang up and listen)
 

SD, while you are waiting for the T's to be crossed and the i's to be dotted... how about you come up with something that shows or even suggests Gopher hockey ISN'T profitable?
 

schnauzer

you need to re-read my posts, I don't recall me saying that gopher hockey was not profitable, in fact just a couple of posts ago I said that I couldn't find anything that said either way. I am looking for information, JackiO provided it, I am checking the validity of it. Maybe you can help out? or do you just want to come to someone's aid?
 

Yes, I thought you were suggesting it WASN'T profitable and I was under that impression since you posted a link that separated Men's and Women's Basketball along with football out of the rest of the "U" sports, which collectively were NOT profitable. If that wasn't your point, I understand now thanks to your later comments.

Essentially any time Gopher sports are discussed from a business perspective, they are divided between "revenue sports" (men's hockey, men's basketball, and football) and "non revenue sports" (pretty much all others). So, my "proof" in your quest for knowledge is the newspaper, TV, and radio reporting that has declared this over and over. I'm sure an email to Joel Maturi or a deeper research project will help you in your info gathering.
 

proof is in the newspaper, tv and radio, are you kidding? you accept those as proof of fact. I will take your 2nd suggestion and e-mail somebody in the know and maybe get an answer.
 

60's Guy said:
Hey JackiO! I might be reading it wrong but in the first link the men's hockey team had a profit of $32 million. This link it is down to $4 million. That's a big difference?

Off thread topic but I'm curious of your opinion as a very casual hockey fan...why has the Gopher hockey team fallen off the face of the earth? Do they need a new coach?
But the guy they got won a national championship...what's going on there? (I'll hang up and listen)
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been more clear. It verifies that both of the 2007 totals were the same from both of my sources. the 32 million is the sum total from all the years combined.

The issue of the team is one that is very intriguing. Personally There are a few major reasons.

1. Players do not respond to Coach Lucia anymore - very lethargic efforts on the ice is pretty much the trademark of the team the last 4 years. We need someone who has the drive and energy to coach this team. He has clearly lost it. I have no faith in him moving forward. ZERO

2. Recruitment of players who rarely stay after their sophomore/junior years because they are always highly drafted by NHL teams who want their assets in their own organizations. I mean we have had massive turnover in recent years in regards to underclassmen compared with other schools. The guys they recruit are too talented and of the "i want to play now" stigma. Well when these younger guys come in they are simple over-matched against the bigger older players found on most of the teams. Once they begin to develop and get bigger and stronger they are gone right away and the process is repeated over and over. We need to start recruiting 4 year players and guys who are willing to play a year or two of juniors after high school.

3. When Mike Guentzel left our defense was absolutely horrid -- he is now back this season after being gone 4 years (thankfully). We all know what happened the last 4 years. Many see him as the future coach of the organization.

4. Lucias player development has been god awful the last 5 years. It seems every big time player that has come into the program has failed to live up to expectations which plainly falls on coaching. Although this could also be related to the fact we recruit players at such a young age you have no idea what you are getting down the road when it's actually time for them to play.

5. Recruiting from high school in MN which is a gopher trademark is becoming a huge disadvantage due to the fact that UND/UMD/WISCONSIN/CC/Denver etc. etc get a ton of players from Canada and the US who play in much more competitive leagues at the same age making them a lot more prepared when they make it to the college game.

Those are just some of the problems with this program right now. However it could easily make a very quick turn around with the right coach.
 

Other options to a superconference

There has to be other options to a superconference. I think 10 to 12 is the perfect number for a conference. Anything larger and the games mean less--especially when the teams are not playing each other every year.

Just spit balling here, but what if the B1G made some sort of deal with a minor conference (like say, the MAC) and created an alliance/joint venture whereby the B1G would create another TV channel--say Big Ten Network 2, but give it significant MAC content. The B1G would agree to schedule a significant number of MAC non-conference games in football and basketball every year--maybe even scheduling the MAC champ vs. the B1G champ and so on down the line on an annual basis.

This avoids creating a diluted or overly large conference and allows for increased revenues, larger footprint, and greater TV exposure for the Big Ten Network by bringing in MAC fans and a second channel. The only catch is whether MAC schools (or some other lesser conference of schools) could swallow their pride and agree to essentially coming off as a B1G minor league of sorts. As always, if the $$$ make sense, I think a minor conference would jump at the chance for a joint venture like this.

Anyone have any other alternative ideas to a superconference?
 

Tubtastic said:
There has to be other options to a superconference. I think 10 to 12 is the perfect number for a conference. Anything larger and the games mean less--especially when the teams are not playing each other every year.

Just spit balling here, but what if the B1G made some sort of deal with a minor conference (like say, the MAC) and created an alliance/joint venture whereby the B1G would create another TV channel--say Big Ten Network 2, but give it significant MAC content. The B1G would agree to schedule a significant number of MAC non-conference games in football and basketball every year--maybe even scheduling the MAC champ vs. the B1G champ and so on down the line on an annual basis.

This avoids creating a diluted or overly large conference and allows for increased revenues, larger footprint, and greater TV exposure for the Big Ten Network by bringing in MAC fans and a second channel. The only catch is whether MAC schools (or some other lesser conference of schools) could swallow their pride and agree to essentially coming off as a B1G minor league of sorts. As always, if the $$$ make sense, I think a minor conference would jump at the chance for a joint venture like this.

Anyone have any other alternative ideas to a superconference?
Click to expand...

This makes some sense in theory, but I'm not sure the MAC would work well. The only way adding the MAC adds any revenue is if it gets BTN more subsciber fees. I would guess that the BTN is already on in most of the MAC footprint. Therefore they would go to great additional expense producing MAC games and make little additional $$, especially after they give them a cut. If you take the same concept and go the Sun Belt, you might add additional subsribers, but all the other logistics don't make sense...

Edit: the only non-B1G footprint school in the MAC is Buffalo. So it would add basically no new markets at all.
 

can someone explain why texas isn't being talked about? i know they've been in the conversation with the pac12, but they should be target number one, imo, much moreso than notre dame. why we'd even consider oklahoma without first bringing in texas is beyond me.
 

Gopherphile said:
can someone explain why texas isn't being talked about? i know they've been in the conversation with the pac12, but they should be target number one, imo, much moreso than notre dame. why we'd even consider oklahoma without first bringing in texas is beyond me.
Click to expand...

It screams of selling out, and what makes you think Texas is going to be any less 'Bevo in a china shop' with the B1G than they were with the Big 12? Let the Pac 12 have the headache if they want it? Screw Texas. Just my opinion.
 

howeda7 said:
It screams of selling out, and what makes you think Texas is going to be any less 'Bevo in a china shop' with the B1G than they were with the Big 12? Let the Pac 12 have the headache if they want it? Screw Texas. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

My opinion as well. Do not want Texas and their holier-than-everyone-else attitude in our conference.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom