Expanding Eastward Could Dliute Big Ten Brand

Donate To GopherHole

My thoughts exactly. This article is exactly why I am not thrilled about this. I would have much rather seen Missouri as an addition and that ship has sailed. I guess on the other hand, I was reviewing the Rutger's fan boards and it is nice to see how thrilled they are. It is a small "feel good" in what is otherwise a bad decision in my opinion.
 

Silver is literally one of the last people's opinions I'd care to hear on this topic. Delaney knows what he is doing, there is no one I'd rather have in charge of the conference right now.
 

I didn't read the article but I think that you could say that expanding eastward WILL dilute the Big Ten brand. But, they're getting a few more bucks out of it so it must be worth it.

I really wish the conference commissioners would have all sat down with each other and done conference expansion in an organized manner rather than the willy nilly way they went about it.
 

Ron Johnson Super Fan said:
I really wish the conference commissioners would have all sat down with each other and done conference expansion in an organized manner rather than the willy nilly way they went about it.
Click to expand...

How would that work? It's ultimately a school's decision if they want to change conferences. A commissioner can do very little. Even if the commissioners did have complete control over their conference members, do you really think any of them would give up any of their members?
 


Schnauzer said:
My thoughts exactly. This article is exactly why I am not thrilled about this. I would have much rather seen Missouri as an addition and that ship has sailed. I guess on the other hand, I was reviewing the Rutger's fan boards and it is nice to see how thrilled they are. It is a small "feel good" in what is otherwise a bad decision in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I also would rather have has Missouri rather than these two. Not sure how much better that would have been though. All three schools seem to be mediocre at best in football and basketball. I would rather see an increase in competition with a top tier school like ND but that may not be possible. Is there 1 or maybe 2 other schools out there that could be targeted instead that would be better or in the future? Not including ND.
 

I'm a fan of Nate Silver's statistical prowess in baseball and politics. He's a very smart guy, but this analysis is focused on the wrong thing. Simply saying that there aren't that many Rutgers football fans doesn't tell the whole story. This is also about:

-the large number of Big Ten alumni in the NYC metro area
-the potential number of new Rutgers (and Big Ten) fans now that they are in a higher profile conference
 

year of the gopher said:
-the potential number of new Rutgers (and Big Ten) fans now that they are in a higher profile conference
Click to expand...

This is a good point, and one I haven't seen made too often. That area of the country is not exposed to big-time college football. If it takes, even a little bit, this will look like an absolute coup.
 

If they sit down mafia style and divide up the territory in a way that makes sense for everyone. Then they make an agreement to stick with the plan and stop the constant poaching of other schools. Schools can't join a new conference if they're not invited.

Ultimately, though, you are right. It wouldn't work. As soon as one of the conferences figured they could get a bit more money they would break the agreement.
 



Gopher07 said:
This is a good point, and one I haven't seen made too often. That area of the country is not exposed to big-time college football. If it takes, even a little bit, this will look like an absolute coup.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. You're picking up two of the largest SMSA's in the country. NY/NJ is 21.2M (#1), Wsh/Blt 7.6M (#5). That's 28.8 MILLION people. Get 5% to start watching B1G4 football and that's a million and a half new fans. You're going to pick up new fans in Philly and Virginia as well. "The answer is this--volume."

Change Bank Video
 

Excellent read. Thanks for posting. I believe Silver started off as a Baseball Stats guy.

Anyone else suprised the Gophers are shy of 1 million fans? Think about what a decade of winning would mean to that number. It's very possible that it could hit the 1.5 million fans that Wisconsin currently has.
 

year of the gopher said:
I'm a fan of Nate Silver's statistical prowess in baseball and politics. He's a very smart guy, but this analysis is focused on the wrong thing. Simply saying that there aren't that many Rutgers football fans doesn't tell the whole story. This is also about:

-the large number of Big Ten alumni in the NYC metro area
-the potential number of new Rutgers (and Big Ten) fans now that they are in a higher profile conference
Click to expand...

Bingo. This is about the BT Network capturing more viewers in the eastern markets. Has little to do with football and basketball. The Big Ten Network can get into some markets that DEMAND that their local cable outlets give them BTN, huge huge dollars for BTN.
 

Also this paragraph from Silver's post rings with me.
"Many college football fans also travel to road games, which bolsters business for local restaurants and hotels. It’s about a three-hour drive from Madison, Wis., to Iowa City. But it’s 15 hours to College Park, Md., and more than 16 hours to New Brunswick, N.J."
This is why I would rather have seen Missouri or Kansas.
 



nokomismod said:
Excellent read. Thanks for posting. I believe Silver started off as a Baseball Stats guy.

Anyone else suprised the Gophers are shy of 1 million fans? Think about what a decade of winning would mean to that number. It's very possible that it could hit the 1.5 million fans that Wisconsin currently has.
Click to expand...

I was surprised, given the history of the team the past few decades, that the gophers would be as high as #28 nationally in the rankings of popularity.
 

nokomismod said:
Also this paragraph from Silver's post rings with me.
"Many college football fans also travel to road games, which bolsters business for local restaurants and hotels. It’s about a three-hour drive from Madison, Wis., to Iowa City. But it’s 15 hours to College Park, Md., and more than 16 hours to New Brunswick, N.J."
This is why I would rather have seen Missouri or Kansas.
Click to expand...

Penn State is a 17 hour drive from Kansas...our perspective blinds us a little bit.
 

Just so we all have the numbers in front of us (because I hear this argument a lot):

City/Distance to Lawrence, KS/Distance to New Brunswick, NJ (from Google Maps)

Minneapolis: 7 hours, 48 min/20 hours 57 min
Lincoln: 3 hours 37 min/21 hours 44 min
Iowa City: 5 hours 45 min/16 hours 53 min
Madison: 8 hours 48 min/16 hours 28 min
Evanston: 9 hours 34 min/14 hours 6 min
Champaign: 7 hours 10 min/14 hours 16 min
West Lafayette: 8 hours 52 min/13 hours 24 min
Bloomington: 8 hours 48 min/13 hours 12 min
East Lansing: 12 hours 34 min/11 hours 41 min
Ann Arbor: 12 hours 48 min/10 hours 36 min
Columbus: 11 hours 40 min/9 hours 22 min
State College: 17 hours 20 min/4 hours 21 min

In all, four schools - Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State - are closer, geographically, to Rutgers than they are to Kansas.
 

Here 's another interesting column on expansion from Grantland. Titled "The Big, Dumb, Greedy Big Ten".

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...in-big-ten-expanding-include-maryland-rutgers

Not sure I agree with everything, but the writer hits on a couple of points. The conference is really poor compared to other BSC conferences. One of the main reasons is because the football talent and football culture is so far behind other areas of the country. We play boring football and the gap from top to bottom is huge. Hard to argue with that if you're a Gopher fan. They're expanding into an area where that is not going to change things. The conference should be looking to the Southeast and South if it wants to have teams in the national title fight again. Couple of interesting maps showing where the good football players come from. Shows how much of a problem Kill has in getting enough talent.
 

For kicks, here are the distances for College Park, MD (and Lawrence, KS for comparison):

Minneapolis: 7 hours, 48 min/19 hours 37 min
Lincoln: 3 hours 37 min/20 hours 24 min
Iowa City: 5 hours 45 min/15 hours 33 min
Madison: 8 hours 48 min/15 hours 8 min
Evanston: 9 hours 34 min/12 hours 46 min
Champaign: 7 hours 10 min/12 hours 14 min
West Lafayette: 8 hours 52 min/11 hours 22 min
Bloomington: 8 hours 48 min/11 hours 10 min
East Lansing: 12 hours 34 min/10 hours 22 min
Ann Arbor: 12 hours 48 min/9 hours 17 min
Columbus: 11 hours 40 min/7 hours 21 min
State College: 17 hours 20 min/3 hours 51 min

Again, we end up with those four schools - Michigan State, Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State - closer. I would say anything under a 12-hour drive is do-able from a roadtrip standpoint (I've done worse - 13 hours to Ann Arbor, for example) but we'll say 12. In that case, Maryland is "roadtrip accessible" for six of the existing 12 teams. Rutgers for four of 12.
 

Mulligan said:
Here 's another interesting column on expansion from Grantland. Titled "The Big, Dumb, Greedy Big Ten".

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...in-big-ten-expanding-include-maryland-rutgers

Not sure I agree with everything, but the writer hits on a couple of points. The conference is really poor compared to other BSC conferences. One of the main reasons is because the football talent and football culture is so far behind other areas of the country. We play boring football and the gap from top to bottom is huge. Hard to argue with that if you're a Gopher fan. They're expanding into an area where that is not going to change things. The conference should be looking to the Southeast and South if it wants to have teams in the national title fight again. Couple of interesting maps showing where the good football players come from. Shows how much of a problem Kill has in getting enough talent.
Click to expand...

Maryland is in one of the fastest growing areas of the country and Rutgers helps in the NYC market. If he can convince Virginia and UNC to jump ship than he's dominating the Mid-Atlantic region.
 

Silver is soooooo wrong.

By having OSU, Mich, Neb teams playing out east it will increase awareness and interest in the B1G. By adding the Balt/Wash DC/NY areas you add so many new tv sets. The ACC got a new tv contract for first tier rights from ESPN for $3.5B. That was with 14 teams in lesser markets in almost every case. And included Balt/Wash DC. The next contract for B1G first tier rights with a network will be $5-7B and divided amongst 14 teams. Which I believe trumps the current contract of $2B divided amongst 12. You can complain that the sports accomplishments of Rutgers and MD don't mean alot. But this is all about owning the televisions, having the most money, the most power, etc. Winning should come along after that with all these advantages.
 

I think people all over the country are quite aware of Nebraska, OSU and Michgian. It's questionable if Rutgers actually delivers the NYC market, and whether Maryland actually delivers the DC market.
 

RodentRampage said:
I think people all over the country are quite aware of Nebraska, OSU and Michgian. It's questionable if Rutgers actually delivers the NYC market, and whether Maryland actually delivers the DC market.
Click to expand...

But now they will be visiting those markets to play. The exact same thought process Notre Dame uses for playing all over the country.
 

MadtownGopher said:
Silver is literally one of the last people's opinions I'd care to hear on this topic. Delaney knows what he is doing, there is no one I'd rather have in charge of the conference right now.
Click to expand...

Why does everyone assume that the NYC and DC markets automatically bring revenue by the millions? Can anyone explain to me why the ACC and Big East, with their schools that have alumni in the tens of thousands (just like many BigTen schools), schools literally littered across the eastern seaboard chock full of population (and future growth), name brands like Miami/FSU/UNC/Clemson/etc ETC, and recent success in big time bowls (ACC has actually done quite well) does NOT get the media contracts the Big Ten does? Why do we assume that since Maryland and Rutgers can supposedly bring in all these market viewers they haven't already for another major conference.

I'll give my answer. It's the BRAND of the Big Ten. Population, income, and demographic changes towards TX, west coast, NE, and SE are not new. This has been going on for a long time. Yet, through all that, the BT has commanded the best deals and most money. It's because the conference HISTORY, PROGRAMS, and MATCHUPS are the difference maker. Diluting this by adding 2 more teams (taking away rivalries, geographic proximity for relevance of games, and removing games all-together due to the increased teams in each division) dilutes the brand of the Big Ten.
 

There's another side to this argument. The East coast is a huge market that is under-served in college sports marketplace, particularly in football. And I'm talking about top tier college competition, not the Ivy League or even the Big East. From a pure business expansion standpoint this would be exactly where the Big Ten should go.
 

I read an article yesterday that talked about how the Michigan AD was just giddy about the fact that their highest concentration of viable alums is in the two new markets. He was gushing how this would help Michigan in fund raising, TV exposure, playing in the area, increasing the Michigan brand, recruiting etc.
 

RailBaronYarr said:
Why does everyone assume that the NYC and DC markets automatically bring revenue by the millions? Can anyone explain to me why the ACC and Big East, with their schools that have alumni in the tens of thousands (just like many BigTen schools), schools literally littered across the eastern seaboard chock full of population (and future growth), name brands like Miami/FSU/UNC/Clemson/etc ETC, and recent success in big time bowls (ACC has actually done quite well) does NOT get the media contracts the Big Ten does? Why do we assume that since Maryland and Rutgers can supposedly bring in all these market viewers they haven't already for another major conference.
Click to expand...

Answer: The Big Ten owns its own network. TV viewers is only one piece of what the Big Ten is after. What hasn't been mentioned in this thread is that securing these markets allows the BTN to demand higher fees from the cable/satellite companies to get the BTN programming on their lineup. For example (and I'm making these figures up, but it will make the point), The BTN might be able to charge Dish Network 10 cents per household to carry BTN in markets where there's not a Big Ten team. But it can charge more like $1.50 per household in Big Ten markets, because there's more demand and people are willing to pay. That's before they count viewers and make money from advertisers. The Big Ten doesn't need everybody in New York City to watch Rutgers for this to be worthwhile; they only need enough to allow them to demand higher fees from Direct TV/Comcast, etc. Adding actual viewers to charge higher advertising fees is money on top of that.

BTN wins if the Johnson family in Landover, Maryland gets cable, even if they don't watch the Terps. In this way, BTN has far more to gain than ESPN. ESPN has this same revenue model, but they're already in these markets thanks to pro sports. ESPN is paying the ACC primarily to attract people who will watch the games so they can charge for advertising.

By the way, that's not enough of a reason for me. This is no longer the Big Ten, as far as I'm concerned.
 

I hate to say it, but the Big Ten will no longer exist as it was known for over a century - and it diminishes my interest in the conference, which was a Midwestern conference with its own brand of football. To be honest, I was never enthusiastic about Penn State, but at least they had a hard-nosed football team with a long winning record. The conference should not be more than 12 teams. These cross-geographical super conferences will kill traditional rivalries (already, Oklahoma-Nebraska, Missouri and its neighbors, Colorado and its traditional foes, etc.). It's all about TV money, apparently - and they will likely not break into East/West groupings, which fans would favor. Legends and Leaders and Followers!
 

GoForGold said:
There's another side to this argument. The East coast is a huge market that is under-served in college sports marketplace, particularly in football. And I'm talking about top tier college competition, not the Ivy League or even the Big East. From a pure business expansion standpoint this would be exactly where the Big Ten should go.
Click to expand...

Don't understand why we all continue to lay down and accept the "business nature" of college sports by making statements like this. Where in the charter of the U or the Athletic Department or even the NCAA is it stated that one of the goals or pillars is to "expand in to new territories and add potential viewers to make more and more money that we won't funnel back in to the state or its population but rather better facilities and coach's salaries to help us win more and make more money through better future TV deals" ??
 

What do we do when the cable service becomes more internet or a la carte based? Do we get to send Rutgers back?
 

Mulligan said:
Here 's another interesting column on expansion from Grantland. Titled "The Big, Dumb, Greedy Big Ten".

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...in-big-ten-expanding-include-maryland-rutgers

Not sure I agree with everything, but the writer hits on a couple of points. The conference is really poor compared to other BSC conferences. One of the main reasons is because the football talent and football culture is so far behind other areas of the country. We play boring football and the gap from top to bottom is huge. Hard to argue with that if you're a Gopher fan. They're expanding into an area where that is not going to change things. The conference should be looking to the Southeast and South if it wants to have teams in the national title fight again. Couple of interesting maps showing where the good football players come from. Shows how much of a problem Kill has in getting enough talent.
Click to expand...

I 100% absolutely disagree that we play boring football in the Big Ten. How many offenses run a spread system with electrifying QBs? Wisconsin (as much as I hate them) played an electrifying Oregon team down to the last second last year in the Rose Bowl, proving their offense can keep up with them (and scoring only 2 fewer points against their defense than LSU did in the same year). I watched 2 electrifying games between Wisconsin and MSU last year.

I watched a game last year between the top 2 teams in the country where neither team scored a touchdown. Then I watched the same two teams play again where a touchdown wasn't scored until 4:36 remaining in the 4th quarter. Define "boring" for me? It's boring because the SEC slanted media (including ESPN and CBS) say how electrifying it is, or characterize a low-scoring defensive game (like MSU-NW at the half last weekend) as boring and "typical Big Ten." I'd say SEC games bore me just as much as BT games where my team isn't in them. And I don't count close thrillers like Florida barely escaping Louisiana Lafayette to be exciting brands of football, either.

I like how he characterizes the bottom of the Big Ten as struggling to compete in a (very good) MAC conference this year. I wonder how Kentucky, Auburn, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Ole Miss would do in the MAC?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom