Penn State’s perspective on additional realignment?

[HailToPitt725]

I want to get a Big Ten school’s perspective on a few thoughts I had regarding future conference realignment. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that the ACC (namely Clemson, FSU, Miami, and/or UNC) gets poached by the Big Ten or SEC.

To me, it all comes down to per-school payouts.
OU and Texas were bluebloods that were obvious additions for the SEC. The Big Ten added USC because they’re also a blueblood and UCLA as a travel partner that solidified the Los Angeles market. A few of the Pac-12 schools (Oregon, Stanford, Washington) make sense if it means securing Notre Dame, which would bring another payout increase.

After that, do Clemson, FSU, Miami, or others provide those same financial incentives for the Big Ten and SEC? I’m not sure. Right now, the most obvious scenario would be if they could somehow kick out certain members (e.g., Rutgers, Vanderbilt) and backfill with the aforementioned ACC schools. Besides that, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.

Another point that was raised on our home board was that ABC/ESPN could voluntarily renegotiate the contract before 2036 and agree to a significant revenue increase that comes closer to the Big Ten/SEC’s financials than any other conference. This would satisfy them for two reasons: they’d avoid having to pay even more for schools they already “own” if they left for the SEC, and it would prevent FOX from poaching any of their properties. In fact, returning to the negotiating table before 2036 would prevent them from even getting involved. It seems like everyone would win in that case, but it would most likely be contingent on Disney keeping ABC/ESPN moving forward.

Is this just wishful thinking from a Pitt fan, or does this at least make an argument for the ACC remaining intact long-term?

 

[bison13]

Pitt to mac or aac

 

[HailToPitt725]

Pitt to mac or aac

You pretty boys can have fun playing in Los Angeles or your domed NFL stadiums come winter. REAL football is a mid-November Wednesday night game in DeKalb, IL.

 

[Wallace Breen]

I want to get a Big Ten school’s perspective on a few thoughts I had regarding future conference realignment. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that the ACC (namely Clemson, FSU, Miami, and/or UNC) gets poached by the Big Ten or SEC.

To me, it all comes down to per-school payouts.
OU and Texas were bluebloods that were obvious additions for the SEC. The Big Ten added USC because they’re also a blueblood and UCLA as a travel partner that solidified the Los Angeles market. A few of the Pac-12 schools (Oregon, Stanford, Washington) make sense if it means securing Notre Dame, which would bring another payout increase.

After that, do Clemson, FSU, Miami, or others provide those same financial incentives for the Big Ten and SEC? I’m not sure. Right now, the most obvious scenario would be if they could somehow kick out certain members (e.g., Rutgers, Vanderbilt) and backfill with the aforementioned ACC schools. Besides that, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.

Another point that was raised on our home board was that ABC/ESPN could voluntarily renegotiate the contract before 2036 and agree to a significant revenue increase that comes closer to the Big Ten/SEC’s financials than any other conference. This would satisfy them for two reasons: they’d avoid having to pay even more for schools they already “own” if they left for the SEC, and it would prevent FOX from poaching any of their properties. In fact, returning to the negotiating table before 2036 would prevent them from even getting involved. It seems like everyone would win in that case, but it would most likely be contingent on Disney keeping ABC/ESPN moving forward.

Is this just wishful thinking from a Pitt fan, or does this at least make an argument for the ACC remaining intact long-term?

You are missing the 800 pound gorilla. If the Big Ten expands into the southeast and play other cards correctly, such as refusing to play SEC teams in the post season, which they absolutely should do, they can put a major hurting on the SEC's finances leaving more money for the Big Ten. The SEC has no draw outside of the southeast. If the Big Ten isolates them and takes over the Carolinas and moves into Atlanta, the SEC will not be able to command much on the market.

 

[HailToPitt725]

You are missing the 800 pound gorilla. If the Big Ten expands into the southeast and play other cards correctly, such as refusing to play SEC teams in the post season, which they absolutely should do, they can put a major hurting on the SEC's finances leaving more money for the Big Ten. The SEC has no draw outside of the southeast. If the Big Ten isolates them and takes over the Carolinas and moves into Atlanta, the SEC will not be able to command much on the market.

That’s a fair argument. To play devil’s advocate, let’s say the Big Ten first adds Oregon, Washington (already being floated) and then Notre Dame plus Stanford. Would adding the four ACC schools mentioned above be a big enough bump in pay to justify that? You’d be splitting the revenue 24 ways at that point.

 

[The Spin Meister]

I don’t see any ACC schools leaving the conference. The restrictions and costs seem pretty ironclad. And I don’t believe they will boot Rutgers to the curb because they want the NYC/Jersey market.

They may pick up the three West Coast teams and maybe ND. That should be as BIG as they need.

And they could then be honest and change the name to The Big Ten X2!

 

[LMTLION]

I want to get a Big Ten school’s perspective on a few thoughts I had regarding future conference realignment. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that the ACC (namely Clemson, FSU, Miami, and/or UNC) gets poached by the Big Ten or SEC.

To me, it all comes down to per-school payouts.
OU and Texas were bluebloods that were obvious additions for the SEC. The Big Ten added USC because they’re also a blueblood and UCLA as a travel partner that solidified the Los Angeles market. A few of the Pac-12 schools (Oregon, Stanford, Washington) make sense if it means securing Notre Dame, which would bring another payout increase.

After that, do Clemson, FSU, Miami, or others provide those same financial incentives for the Big Ten and SEC? I’m not sure. Right now, the most obvious scenario would be if they could somehow kick out certain members (e.g., Rutgers, Vanderbilt) and backfill with the aforementioned ACC schools. Besides that, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.

Another point that was raised on our home board was that ABC/ESPN could voluntarily renegotiate the contract before 2036 and agree to a significant revenue increase that comes closer to the Big Ten/SEC’s financials than any other conference. This would satisfy them for two reasons: they’d avoid having to pay even more for schools they already “own” if they left for the SEC, and it would prevent FOX from poaching any of their properties. In fact, returning to the negotiating table before 2036 would prevent them from even getting involved. It seems like everyone would win in that case, but it would most likely be contingent on Disney keeping ABC/ESPN moving forward.

Is this just wishful thinking from a Pitt fan, or does this at least make an argument for the ACC remaining intact long-term?

There will not be any poaching from the ACC over the life of the ACC GOR. It seems legally impossible to break the GOR overall. It would’ve been done at this point if it was possible. It is financially impossible (suicide level) for a single school to suffer the financial consequences of doing so as well. I’m not sure why any school in the ACC would agree to such a long prohibitive agreement. It was poor leadership at the conference level and suckers at the individual institution level.

 

[Online Persona]

I don’t see any ACC schools leaving the conference. The restrictions and costs seem pretty ironclad. And I don’t believe they will boot Rutgers to the curb because they want the NYC/Jersey market.

They may pick up the three West Coast teams and maybe ND. That should be as BIG as they need.

And they could then be honest and change the name to The Big Ten X2!

How much does Rutgers bring the NY/NJ market? I would venture that the Big Ten already had that market with PSU.

 

[Wallace Breen]

That’s a fair argument. To play devil’s advocate, let’s say the Big Ten first adds Oregon, Washington (already being floated) and then Notre Dame plus Stanford. Would adding the four ACC schools mentioned above be a big enough bump in pay to justify that? You’d be splitting the revenue 24 ways at that point.

If the end goal is something much bigger, absolutely. People tend to think about money in a very simple sense. The rules are different for college athletics than for say business or personal finance. In almost all instances, every penny that comes into an athletic department is spent. Most power five schools are in the red inspire of the infusion of cash and all other D1 schools are in the red. This makes the dollar figure an arbitrary number as profit isn't a thing. If you reign in spending, a reduction in income doesn't matter.

 

[Wallace Breen]

I don’t see any ACC schools leaving the conference. The restrictions and costs seem pretty ironclad. And I don’t believe they will boot Rutgers to the curb because they want the NYC/Jersey market.

They may pick up the three West Coast teams and maybe ND. That should be as BIG as they need.

And they could then be honest and change the name to The Big Ten X2!

A couple of things here, the ACC's restrictions are far from iron clad. The Virginia schools have a very strong case if they chose to pursue it. Furthermore, there is critical mass within the ACC to move past the restrictions they placed on themselves. Once that movement grows, and it doesn't have to grow much since it already has a majority, they can just undo it the restrictions.

You are right, the Big Ten will not boot Rutgers nor will they boot Maryland. Those schools were brought in for a reason, to bring Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State into those markets on a regular basis which grows an underdeveloped market.

 

[LMTLION]

A couple of things here, the ACC's restrictions are far from iron clad. The Virginia schools have a very strong case if they chose to pursue it. Furthermore, there is critical mass within the ACC to move past the restrictions they placed on themselves. Once that movement grows, and it doesn't have to grow much since it already has a majority, they can just undo it the restrictions.

You are right, the Big Ten will not boot Rutgers nor will they boot Maryland. Those schools were brought in for a reason, to bring Penn State, Michigan and Ohio State into those markets on a regular basis which grows an underdeveloped market.

There are no sources indicating the GOR is ‘far from ironclad.’ It is absolute. If it was not absolute and just needs a majority, it would have been broken at this point. Let’s say you’re right about the VA schools lack of authority to sign the GOR without legislative approval. I am not an attorney, but I highly doubt that technicality removes their liability of walking away from the GOR.

 

[Thomas1945]

How much does Rutgers bring the NY/NJ market? I would venture that the Big Ten already had that market with PSU.

I would venture to guess that a PSU an OSU or UM game vs anyone would out rate any Rutgers game. However according to many Rutgers fans their entry into the BIG ensured the NYC area market and saved the BIG from falling into irrelevance.

 

[GreatBasinNit]

How much does Rutgers bring the NY/NJ market? I would venture that the Big Ten already had that market with PSU.

They did. I would wager there are just as many PSU football fans in New Jersey as Rutgers fans.

I might go further and argue something similar about Maryland.

 

[LandoComando]

I want to get a Big Ten school’s perspective on a few thoughts I had regarding future conference realignment. I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that the ACC (namely Clemson, FSU, Miami, and/or UNC) gets poached by the Big Ten or SEC.

To me, it all comes down to per-school payouts.
OU and Texas were bluebloods that were obvious additions for the SEC. The Big Ten added USC because they’re also a blueblood and UCLA as a travel partner that solidified the Los Angeles market. A few of the Pac-12 schools (Oregon, Stanford, Washington) make sense if it means securing Notre Dame, which would bring another payout increase.

After that, do Clemson, FSU, Miami, or others provide those same financial incentives for the Big Ten and SEC? I’m not sure. Right now, the most obvious scenario would be if they could somehow kick out certain members (e.g., Rutgers, Vanderbilt) and backfill with the aforementioned ACC schools. Besides that, I don’t think it’s a slam dunk.

Another point that was raised on our home board was that ABC/ESPN could voluntarily renegotiate the contract before 2036 and agree to a significant revenue increase that comes closer to the Big Ten/SEC’s financials than any other conference. This would satisfy them for two reasons: they’d avoid having to pay even more for schools they already “own” if they left for the SEC, and it would prevent FOX from poaching any of their properties. In fact, returning to the negotiating table before 2036 would prevent them from even getting involved. It seems like everyone would win in that case, but it would most likely be contingent on Disney keeping ABC/ESPN moving forward.

Is this just wishful thinking from a Pitt fan, or does this at least make an argument for the ACC remaining intact long-term?

I'm not a Pitt hater like many here but this is just wishful thinking on your part

 

[psuno1]

Bring it on if the chaps OSU and UM's hide.

 

[LongJakk]

When Rutgers and MD joined UT was all about cable TV sets in their states. With streaming now that model is obsolete. The new model is now actual tv viewers of the schools football teams.

Based on that model the Pac10 only makes sense for Oregon(#12) and Washington(#34), but Utah(#33) is a darkhorse. Stanford(#47) makes little financial sense.

The ACC GOR only delays the poaching, but when it expires the schools to watch are FSU(#15) and NC(#46). Pitt(#56) is not viable in the B1G. Clemson seems like a better fit for the SEC. VA (#69) is similar to Stanford. VTech (#67) doesn't move the needle either. Some people mention GTech(#49), but again they are more like Stanford and VA.

Fyi. These rankings are 2022 viewers

 

[HailToPitt725]

When Rutgers and MD joined UT was all about cable TV sets in their states. With streaming now that model is obsolete. The new model is now actual tv viewers of the schools football teams.

Based on that model the Pac10 only makes sense for Oregon(#12) and Washington(#34), but Utah(#33) is a darkhorse. Stanford(#47) makes little financial sense.

The ACC GOR only delays the poaching, but when it expires the schools to watch are FSU(#15) and NC(#46). Pitt(#56) is not viable in the B1G. Clemson seems like a better fit for the SEC. VA (#69) is similar to Stanford. VTech (#67) doesn't move the needle either. Some people mention GTech(#49), but again they are more like Stanford and VA.

Fyi. These rankings are 2022 viewers

I agree with all of this. I see a lot of people saying the Big Ten will invite Georgia Tech and Virginia or the SEC will invite NC State and Virginia Tech, but I just don’t see how they increase the conferences’ per-school payouts. It’s not about markets anymore. You also have to consider that the Big Ten will likely invite two schools at most from the ACC because they’re also looking towards the Pac-12 and Notre Dame.

When the time comes, I believe the Big Ten will land Miami and North Carolina (plus Notre Dame and a combination of Pac-12 schools) while the SEC takes Clemson and Florida State. Perhaps the Big 12 snatches away an ACC school (Louisville?) while also expanding westward.

Down the line, I think the Big Ten and SEC look for ways to downsize (e.g., Maryland and Rutgers; Missouri and Vanderbilt) to maximize the revenue distributions. I’d hope for the ACC to pick up Maryland and Rutgers and then look to split up its football and basketball TV contracts to maximize our own revenue. I’d love it if we retain a regional-centric conference with similar academic institutions as us.

 

[lazydave841]

I say it all depends on what the networks want just as much as any conference. If there was more advertising money to be made by letting the ACC out of its contract, the GOR would end quickly and the teams would disperse.

The reality is, the ACC is being broadcast A LOT cheaper than the SEC and Big 10 and while they don't draw near as many viewers, it's still an excellent deal (probably dollar for dollar the best bang for the buck going compared to the outrageous cost on the new deals) for the NETWORK.

If the Pac 12 is having trouble finalizing a deal, that should tell you a lot about the climate outside of the big 2 conferences.

 

[LongJakk]

Down the line, I think the Big Ten and SEC look for ways to downsize (e.g., Maryland and Rutgers; Missouri and Vanderbilt) to maximize the revenue distributions.

Maryland was actually #19 on the most viewed list for 2022. They aren't going anywhere.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Maryland was actually #19 on the most viewed list for 2022. They aren't going anywhere.

Honestly, that surprises me. I stand corrected. Can they sustain that?

 

[LandoComando]

Honestly, that surprises me. I stand corrected. Can they sustain that?

Depends on if they keep improving but Maryland isn't a program in jeopardy of getting left behind

 

[The Spin Meister]

Depends on if they keep improving but Maryland isn't a program in jeopardy of getting left behind

It is a quality educational joint and being close to DC gives it some serious political clout.……they ain’t going no where.

 

[HailToPitt725]

Maryland was actually #19 on the most viewed list for 2022. They aren't going anywhere.

Also, a follow-up question: let’s say Clemson, FSU, Miami, and NC State are poached by the Big Ten/SEC. From a non-ACC fan’s perspective, would the ACC be more likely to land new members from the Big 12 (e.g., Cincinnati, WVU, UCF) or the other way around?

 

[LandoComando]

Also, a follow-up question: let’s say Clemson, FSU, Miami, and NC State are poached by the Big Ten/SEC. From a non-ACC fan’s perspective, would the ACC be more likely to land new members from the Big 12 (e.g., Cincinnati, WVU, UCF) or the other way around?

I think Pitt and others would be joining the Big XII

 

[lazydave841]

Also, a follow-up question: let’s say Clemson, FSU, Miami, and NC State are poached by the Big Ten/SEC. From a non-ACC fan’s perspective, would the ACC be more likely to land new members from the Big 12 (e.g., Cincinnati, WVU, UCF) or the other way around?

Good question.

For the sake of geography, eastern Big 12 schools moving to the ACC would be logical. As we have seen, geography hasn't been relevant so I guess it will depend on the swerve of the next 5-10 years.

Does the Big 12 draw eyeballs absent it's blue bloods? That's probably the key thing.

The ACC would draw poorly without 2 of the 4 you listed. The 2 merging would be a basketball conference by that point. Not sure how that would go for football.

 

[GreatBasinNit]

Maryland was actually #19 on the most viewed list for 2022. They aren't going anywhere.

Maryland played PSU, Michigan, OSU, MSU, and Wisconsin last year. Of course their viewers per game were high. UMASS would’ve had high viewership per game if they played Maryland’s schedule.

A more revealing statistic is that Maryland vs Rutgers only drew 97k viewers (2022 - Maryland vs Rutgers). Maryland vs IU had 390k viewers (2022 - Maryland vs IU). In other words, Maryland’s ratings stink whenever they aren’t playing somebody who draws well.

These numbers further the point that the bigger brands in college ball are going to eventually start questioning why they’re splitting the kitty with teams that dilute their payout.

 

[84Lion]

The ACC consists of smaller schools that are generally not flagship state universities. UNC and Virginia are about the only two. All of the remaining schools play second fiddle to other flagship universities in their respective states.

If the B1G wanted inroads into the Southeast, UNC, Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Miami are all AAU members. The SEC might covet UNC, but otherwise I can’t see them going for any of the other schools.

I have long said that it would make a lot more sense for the B1G to lure Florida and Georgia from the SEC. Georgia isn’t AAU (yet) but they are close. I think the B1G might give Georgia a bit of a pass if the two came in together. Then bring on UNC and Virginia and you have the B1G ensconced nicely on the East coast.

Otherwise, I can’t see the B1G being interested in too many of the ACC schools.

 

[YYZ86]

Maryland played PSU, Michigan, OSU, MSU, and Wisconsin last year. Of course their viewers per game were high. UMASS would’ve had high viewership per game if they played Maryland’s schedule.

A more revealing statistic is that Maryland vs Rutgers only drew 97k viewers (2022 - Maryland vs Rutgers). Maryland vs IU had 390k viewers (2022 - Maryland vs IU). In other words, Maryland’s ratings stink whenever they aren’t playing somebody who draws well.

These numbers further the point that the bigger brands in college ball are going to eventually start questioning why they’re splitting the kitty with teams that dilute their payout.

Why do the ratings of Maryland vs Rutgers matter? You knew that when you brought them in.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Maryland played PSU, Michigan, OSU, MSU, and Wisconsin last year. Of course their viewers per game were high. UMASS would’ve had high viewership per game if they played Maryland’s schedule.

A more revealing statistic is that Maryland vs Rutgers only drew 97k viewers (2022 - Maryland vs Rutgers). Maryland vs IU had 390k viewers (2022 - Maryland vs IU). In other words, Maryland’s ratings stink whenever they aren’t playing somebody who draws well.

These numbers further the point that the bigger brands in college ball are going to eventually start questioning why they’re splitting the kitty with teams that dilute their payout.

The critical component is what ate the ratings in the NYC/NJ area and the DC/Maryland market? And are those markets growing?

Those two were added to attract those audiences. If they do so they will stay.

 

[GreatBasinNit]

Why do the ratings of Maryland vs Rutgers matter? You knew that when you brought them in.

The original post, to which I was responding, mentioned that Maryland had the 19th highest average ratings in the country. I pointed out those ratings were driven, not by Maryland, but by the teams they were playing. To illustrate that point I highlighted the rather pathetic ratings of the Maryland-Rutgers game. If Maryland was such a ratings grab, then their game against Rutgers, or any other lackluster team, would’ve been much higher than 97k.

Whether or not I knew that when they came into the Big Ten is irrelevant. Firstly because I wasn’t the one who brought them in. Secondly that was not the point of the post.

 

[GreatBasinNit]

The critical component is what ate the ratings in the NYC/NJ area and the DC/Maryland market? And are those markets growing?

Those two were added to attract those audiences. If they do so they will stay.

Why? The Big Ten did not, and still does not, need Rutgers or Maryland to bring in the NYC or DC/Baltimore markets. Most people in those cities don’t care about college football. The ones that do care will pull for their alma mater or Notre Dame.

The idea that you need a local team to get your product in that market is dated. Even if it wasn’t, 97k viewers is terrible. That’s 97k total viewers between Rutgers and Maryland fans combined. You don’t need a deep dive analysis to say that they aren’t bringing eyeballs to the tvs in NYC, DC, Baltimore, or anywhere else. I’ll go out on a limb and say that OSU-Michigan, which was played that same weekend, got far more viewers in New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. I’ll also add PSU-MSU to that list.

 

[YYZ86]

The original post, to which I was responding, mentioned that Maryland had the 19th highest average ratings in the country. I pointed out those ratings were driven, not by Maryland, but by the teams they were playing. To illustrate that point I highlighted the rather pathetic ratings of the Maryland-Rutgers game. If Maryland was such a ratings grab, then their game against Rutgers, or any other lackluster team, would’ve been much higher than 97k.

Whether or not I knew that when they came into the Big Ten is irrelevant. Firstly because I wasn’t the one who brought them in. Secondly that was not the point of the post.

Correct but their ratings when they play each other is meaningless as to revenue sharing. That is my point.

 

[GreatBasinNit]

Correct but their ratings when they play each other is meaningless as to revenue sharing. That is my point.

For now. But revenue is largely generated by tv dollars. The networks know they’ll make money by advertisements because the games get good ratings. How long before the bigger brands realize they can have more if they don’t share with two teams who can’t break 100k viewers between them?

 

[YYZ86]

For now. But revenue is largely generated by tv dollars. The networks know they’ll make money by advertisements because the games get good ratings. How long before the bigger brands realize they can have more if they don’t share with two teams who can’t break 100k viewers between them?

Sorry I don’t see it. They added those two teams for other reasons. They knew their viewership for football would not be good. I’m done.

 

[Sullivan]

For now. But revenue is largely generated by tv dollars. The networks know they’ll make money by advertisements because the games get good ratings. How long before the bigger brands realize they can have more if they don’t share with two teams who can’t break 100k viewers between them?

You are correct. But sadly, Maryland aren’t going away anytime soon.

The next tier of Big 10 schools won’t support it, out of fear they might be next on the chopping block.

 

[GreatBasinNit]

You are correct. But sadly, Maryland aren’t going away anytime soon.

The next tier of Big 10 schools won’t support it, out of fear they might be next on the chopping block.

I agree this isn’t happening within the next 5 years. But we are moving towards major college football being somewhere between 40 and 50 teams with two conferences. Several of those next tier teams in the Big Ten will be on the outside looking in.

 

[The Spin Meister]

Why? The Big Ten did not, and still does not, need Rutgers or Maryland to bring in the NYC or DC/Baltimore markets. Most people in those cities don’t care about college football. The ones that do care will pull for their alma mater or Notre Dame.

The idea that you need a local team to get your product in that market is dated. Even if it wasn’t, 97k viewers is terrible. That’s 97k total viewers between Rutgers and Maryland fans combined. You don’t need a deep dive analysis to say that they aren’t bringing eyeballs to the tvs in NYC, DC, Baltimore, or anywhere else. I’ll go out on a limb and say that OSU-Michigan, which was played that same weekend, got far more viewers in New Jersey, New York, and Maryland. I’ll also add PSU-MSU to that list.

But those teams help ratings.

When the big boys come to town people go to games to see them up close and personal. So that will make them more likely to watch them play other games instead of a SEC, ACC, Big 12, or other games because they have a personal connection.

Even works if they don’t go to games. Say you are a Rutgers fan and watch Rutgers play Wisky just on tv. More likely to watch Wisky the week before to scout them out. And may be more likely to watch them afterwards if you saw a couple players that impressed you.

Bet that B2G ratings for all games in the NYC/NJ market are way up since Rutgers joined the league.

 

[GreatBasinNit]

But those teams help ratings.

When the big boys come to town people go to games to see them up close and personal. So that will make them more likely to watch them play other games instead of a SEC, ACC, Big 12, or other games because they have a personal connection.

Even works if they don’t go to games. Say you are a Rutgers fan and watch Rutgers play Wisky just on tv. More likely to watch Wisky the week before to scout them out. And may be more likely to watch them afterwards if you saw a couple players that impressed you.

Bet that B2G ratings for all games in the NYC/NJ market are way up since Rutgers joined the league.

I would venture a guess that college football ratings in general are up since 2010, hence the increasing tv revenue. The Big Ten did not need Rutgers to get the BTN on in NYC. It would have happened eventually with or without Rutgers.

 

[The Spin Meister]

I would venture a guess that college football ratings in general are up since 2010, hence the increasing tv revenue. The Big Ten did not need Rutgers to get the BTN on in NYC. It would have happened eventually with or without Rutgers.

Again, Rutgers likely helped all B2G game ratings. People like to watch the games of teams in their leagues.

 

[GreatBasinNit]

Again, Rutgers likely helped all B2G game ratings. People like to watch the games of teams in their leagues.

There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Rutgers is responsible for more people watching Big Ten football games. As I posted above, they had a conference game last year that got 97k tv viewers. Apparently not even many of their own fans watch their games, so I doubt there are that many loyal fans of Rutgers “scouting” their next opponent.