If and when the BIG expands

[Delco Lion]

Ian, if the money is there, I am all for it. The BIG hasnt done PSU any favors and the slights have all been discussed ad nauseam. Would certainly help recruiting and add much more attractive game travel destinations.

 

[Art]

Outside of athletics, what are the true benefits to B1G membership? What would prevent PSU and others from creating a new “ACC” combining the old eastern powers with the original ACC schools?

My point is that I’ve never felt a fit with PSU and the B1G. Yes, it’s worked but the B1G has been anything but welcoming and supportive of PSU. Recent scandals at MSU and OSU just show how different things are as a few wanted PSU shutdown and expelled back in 2011-12.

PSU needs to be selfish and I hope they are exploring other options. I would welcome aligning with fellow east coast institutions. More major markets in the EST zone than in the CST and it’s growing.

Well, there is the little matter of a GoR that extends into the 2030s.

 

[PSUinSTL]

Part of me agrees, but not sure the TV and bowl money would be there.

A conference of the following;
North - Pitt, PSU, BC, ND, Rutgers, West Virginia, Syracuse
South - Florida State, Miami, Maryland, VT, Clemson, East Carolina, UVA

Note - I realize that UVA/Maryland/Clemson were in the ACC originally and UVA would be reluctant to leave - but if FSU/Miami/VT/Clemson left the ACC UVA wouldn't stay just to be nice to historical rivals- and that others are currently in the ACC - but if this conference were to form - teams would sign up to be included.

TV revenue would be at the top (or near the top). Bowl revenue might suffer some - as FSU/Miami don't typically travel well - but WVU/PSU/Clemson/ND most certainly do.

In the north - you'd have 2 of the biggest programs nationally. You'd have 4 solid tier 2/3 schools - BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Only 1 real dreg (Rutgers)
In the South - FSU/Miami/Clemson carry very well nationally. UVA/VTMaryland make up a solid tier 2/3. Only ECU (who isn't aweful) would be a 'horrible' team.

Put FSU/Miami/Clemson/ND/PSU in a conference and the name/TV power would best essentially every other conference. The BIG would take a major dive in revenue. Lose 1/4 of the 'premier' programs - and lose 3 of the 4 biggest markets in the league footprint.

Looking at this conference - it would be a great conference.
All teams in the north are fairly close - only ND/BC are outliers geographically - and honestly with the east coast as it is - all are reasonable. Only ND is truly an outlier - but nothing like WVU in the BIG12. You could flip a few teams (like VT to the north/RU to the south for competitive reasons)

 

[78SweetRevenge]

Outside of athletics, what are the true benefits to B1G membership? What would prevent PSU and others from creating a new “ACC” combining the old eastern powers with the original ACC schools?

My point is that I’ve never felt a fit with PSU and the B1G. Yes, it’s worked but the B1G has been anything but welcoming and supportive of PSU. Recent scandals at MSU and OSU just show how different things are as a few wanted PSU shutdown and expelled back in 2011-12.

PSU needs to be selfish and I hope they are exploring other options. I would welcome aligning with fellow east coast institutions. More major markets in the EST zone than in the CST and it’s growing.

Staying in the Big Ten is the selfish, smart thing to do. Who cares if the Big Ten treats us "warmly"? There are no other options. This is about money. No program is dumb enough to even consider leaving the Big Ten. This is still an 80s mentality.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

A conference of the following;
North - Pitt, PSU, BC, ND, Rutgers, West Virginia, Syracuse
South - Florida State, Miami, Maryland, VT, Clemson, East Carolina, UVA

Note - I realize that UVA/Maryland/Clemson were in the ACC originally and UVA would be reluctant to leave - but if FSU/Miami/VT/Clemson left the ACC UVA wouldn't stay just to be nice to historical rivals- and that others are currently in the ACC - but if this conference were to form - teams would sign up to be included.

TV revenue would be at the top (or near the top). Bowl revenue might suffer some - as FSU/Miami don't typically travel well - but WVU/PSU/Clemson/ND most certainly do.

In the north - you'd have 2 of the biggest programs nationally. You'd have 4 solid tier 2/3 schools - BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Only 1 real dreg (Rutgers)
In the South - FSU/Miami/Clemson carry very well nationally. UVA/VTMaryland make up a solid tier 2/3. Only ECU (who isn't aweful) would be a 'horrible' team.

Put FSU/Miami/Clemson/ND/PSU in a conference and the name/TV power would best essentially every other conference. The BIG would take a major dive in revenue. Lose 1/4 of the 'premier' programs - and lose 3 of the 4 biggest markets in the league footprint.

Looking at this conference - it would be a great conference.
All teams in the north are fairly close - only ND/BC are outliers geographically - and honestly with the east coast as it is - all are reasonable. Only ND is truly an outlier - but nothing like WVU in the BIG12. You could flip a few teams (like VT to the north/RU to the south for competitive reasons)

You think this is close to being as good as the current Big Ten? Seriously?
Everyone needs to accept the fact that if conferences continue to exist in this manner we're never leaving--nor should we.

 

[Op2]

Just to be different, and because throwing crazy ideas out there can be beneficial sometimes (and pointless other times), how about no conferences at all? I haven't hashed out the details beyond this. Schools will certainly want to have the power to play certain other schools every year but beyond that they would not have to be bound to play others, like in a conference.

What's the point of a conference anyway? Scheduling? We'll figure out another way to do that. And money sharing? We'll figure that out too.

I mean, as now now we have 12, 14, 16 team conferences that crown a "champion" each year despite playing only 8-9 "conference" games each year, plus a title game that often does not involve the two teams that performed best in the conference in the regular season. That's already pretty silly.

I don't mean the B10 doing it without others, which of course would never happen, but rather a giant pow wow with all the schools deciding to do it at once.

Maybe even have shifting mini-temp conferences, like these next two years are when these few teams all play those few teams and that shifts every couple years. And of course within all this each team can play whatever rivals each year that it insists on being annual rivals.

Yeah, sounds pretty crazy, but sometimes crazy is good. It's not like what we have now is so good.

 

[Op2]

16 is probably the max. But with a 9 game schedule, 7 against your own division, you don’t see the other division schools very often. If they do go to 16, I hope they try something different. Figure out a system that keeps rivalries intact but also rotates schedules better. I’d rather have fluid divisions than play the same 7 schools every year.

With 16 teams in a conference and only 9 conference games I don't think there are any good choices. For that matter the same could be said with 14 teams.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

Just to be different, and because throwing crazy ideas out there can be beneficial sometimes (and pointless other times), how about no conferences at all? I haven't hashed out the details beyond this. Schools will certainly want to have the power to play certain other schools every year but beyond that they would not have to be bound to play others, like in a conference.

What's the point of a conference anyway? Scheduling? We'll figure out another way to do that. And money sharing? We'll figure that out too.

I mean, as now now we have 12, 14, 16 team conferences that crown a "champion" each year despite playing only 8-9 "conference" games each year, plus a title game that often does not involve the two teams that performed best in the conference in the regular season. That's already pretty silly.

I don't mean the B10 doing it without others, which of course would never happen, but rather a giant pow wow with all the schools deciding to do it at once.

Maybe even have shifting mini-temp conferences, like these next two years are when these few teams all play those few teams and that shifts every couple years. And of course within all this each team can play whatever rivals each year that it insists on being annual rivals.

Yeah, sounds pretty crazy, but sometimes crazy is good. It's not like what we have now is so good.

In a perfect world we'd have 4 super conferences of 14 and you played 13 regular season games all against conference opponents. Top 2 in each conference advance to the playoff.

Less conference games only make things worse. Teams can stack 9 home games against weak opponent. Let's not pretend if the mini-conference idea exists Penn State wouldn't be playing MAC teams and the App States of the world at home....$$$$$

 

[Art]

With 16 teams in a conference and only 9 conference games I don't think there are any good choices. For that matter the same could be said with 14 teams.

Problem is that what's good for the fans and what's good for the schools doesn't necessarily intersect?

 

[The_Unit]

16 is probably the max. But with a 9 game schedule, 7 against your own division, you don’t see the other division schools very often. If they do go to 16, I hope they try something different. Figure out a system that keeps rivalries intact but also rotates schedules better. I’d rather have fluid divisions than play the same 7 schools every year.

That’s why they’d have to go to 4 pods of 4. A two division 16 team conference wouldn’t work.

 

[Woodpecker]

Just to be different, and because throwing crazy ideas out there can be beneficial sometimes (and pointless other times), how about no conferences at all? I haven't hashed out the details beyond this. Schools will certainly want to have the power to play certain other schools every year but beyond that they would not have to be bound to play others, like in a conference.

What's the point of a conference anyway? Scheduling? We'll figure out another way to do that. And money sharing? We'll figure that out too.

I mean, as now now we have 12, 14, 16 team conferences that crown a "champion" each year despite playing only 8-9 "conference" games each year, plus a title game that often does not involve the two teams that performed best in the conference in the regular season. That's already pretty silly.

I don't mean the B10 doing it without others, which of course would never happen, but rather a giant pow wow with all the schools deciding to do it at once.

Maybe even have shifting mini-temp conferences, like these next two years are when these few teams all play those few teams and that shifts every couple years. And of course within all this each team can play whatever rivals each year that it insists on being annual rivals.

Yeah, sounds pretty crazy, but sometimes crazy is good. It's not like what we have now is so good.

How about sport-specific conferences? ND does it.

 

[MJG-90]

What's the point of a conference anyway?

Do you honestly think PSU on its own brings in as much revenue as PSU in the Big Ten?

 

[Op2]

How about sport-specific conferences? ND does it.

When the conferences are clearly set up for football, and basketball to a certain extent, it does seem crazy to make all the other sports go along for the ride.

 

[Art]

A conference of the following;
North - Pitt, PSU, BC, ND, Rutgers, West Virginia, Syracuse
South - Florida State, Miami, Maryland, VT, Clemson, East Carolina, UVA

Note - I realize that UVA/Maryland/Clemson were in the ACC originally and UVA would be reluctant to leave - but if FSU/Miami/VT/Clemson left the ACC UVA wouldn't stay just to be nice to historical rivals- and that others are currently in the ACC - but if this conference were to form - teams would sign up to be included.

TV revenue would be at the top (or near the top). Bowl revenue might suffer some - as FSU/Miami don't typically travel well - but WVU/PSU/Clemson/ND most certainly do.

In the north - you'd have 2 of the biggest programs nationally. You'd have 4 solid tier 2/3 schools - BC, Syracuse, Pitt, WVU. Only 1 real dreg (Rutgers)
In the South - FSU/Miami/Clemson carry very well nationally. UVA/VTMaryland make up a solid tier 2/3. Only ECU (who isn't aweful) would be a 'horrible' team.

Put FSU/Miami/Clemson/ND/PSU in a conference and the name/TV power would best essentially every other conference. The BIG would take a major dive in revenue. Lose 1/4 of the 'premier' programs - and lose 3 of the 4 biggest markets in the league footprint.

Looking at this conference - it would be a great conference.
All teams in the north are fairly close - only ND/BC are outliers geographically - and honestly with the east coast as it is - all are reasonable. Only ND is truly an outlier - but nothing like WVU in the BIG12. You could flip a few teams (like VT to the north/RU to the south for competitive reasons)

Revenue wise this configuration sucks ass. It's the ACC with one teams that are contributors to marginal revenue (PSU), three that are break even (ND, Rutgers and Maryland) and two drags (WVU and ECU).

From an economic sense, PSU is better staying where it is.

 

[Art]

Do you honestly think PSU on its own brings in as much revenue as PSU in the Big Ten?

Probably not, even under the best of assumptions.

 

[MJG-90]

That’s why they’d have to go to 4 pods of 4. A two division 16 team conference wouldn’t work.

I've thought about this concept. You'd always play the other three in your pod and rotate the others. But how would this work for PSU? We'd end up in a pod with Rutgers, Maryland and ??? (maybe Michigan State?). Ohio State and Michigan would want to stay together. Perhaps they get Purdue and Indiana. Now we don't play Ohio State and Michigan every year. Maybe that's okay if we are getting Texas and Oklahoma instead. I don't know how it works, but it's fun to talk about.

 

[Op2]

Do you honestly think PSU on its own brings in as much revenue as PSU in the Big Ten?

If you're comparing (1) the Big Ten exists but PSU is not in it and is on its own instead with (2) the Big Ten exists and PSU is in it then clearly the latter is the better alternative for PSU.

But I'm saying I doubt the only way to bring in money for football is to have conferences. TV viewers like watching good college football. That's where the money comes from.

 

[MJG-90]

But I'm saying I doubt the only way to bring in money for football is to have conferences. TV viewers like watching good college football. That's where the money comes from.

I'm suggesting there is more money for all when TV rights are packaged by conference than when schools try to negotiate on their own (in most, not all cases).

 

[78SweetRevenge]

If you're comparing (1) the Big Ten exists but PSU is not in it and is on its own instead with (2) the Big Ten exists and PSU is in it then clearly the latter is the better alternative for PSU.

But I'm saying I doubt the only way to bring in money for football is to have conferences. TV viewers like watching good college football. That's where the money comes from.

You're pretending we're going to schedule "good football" games...there way be a few good games but the schedule wouldn't be close to as appealing as it is now--which is just sad

 

[Art]

I'm suggesting there is more money for all when TV rights are packaged by conference than when schools try to negotiate on their own (in most, not all cases).

Yup. See: Notre Dame. End of discussion.

 

[NittPicker]

I've thought about this concept. You'd always play the other three in your pod and rotate the others. But how would this work for PSU? We'd end up in a pod with Rutgers, Maryland and ??? (maybe Michigan State?). Ohio State and Michigan would want to stay together. Perhaps they get Purdue and Indiana. Now we don't play Ohio State and Michigan every year. Maybe that's okay if we are getting Texas and Oklahoma instead. I don't know how it works, but it's fun to talk about.

That would be the problem. The pod idea would need to keep certain schools together for rivalry and geographical purposes. For that reason Michigan would have to be with OSU and MSU. Purdue would need to be with Illinois and Indiana. An eastern team would need to be added to fill out the four team eastern pod. I realize geography isn't the #1 priority but I think having pods as geographically compact as possible is important to retain fan interest.

That said, I don't envision the B1G going to 16 anytime soon.

 

[Op2]

You're pretending we're going to schedule "good football" games...there way be a few good games but the schedule wouldn't be close to as appealing as it is now--which is just sad

Well granted, I haven't figured out the details. Maybe there's be an overarching authority that partially determines who plays who, like the NFL does with the NFL teams. I'm sure schools would be reluctant to give that power away but if they could be convinced it would be beneficial then, maybe.

I'm under no illusion this would happen anytime soon but I'm thinking bigger picture, longer term.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

That would be the problem. The pod idea would need to keep certain schools together for rivalry and geographical purposes. For that reason Michigan would have to be with OSU and MSU. Purdue would need to be with Illinois and Indiana. An eastern team would need to be added to fill out the four team eastern pod. I realize geography isn't the #1 priority but I think having pods as geographically compact as possible is important to retain fan interest.

That said, I don't envision the B1G going to 16 anytime soon.

I think the "geography" argument is outdated. I'd be fine if they put Penn State and Nebraska together in that scenario. Two blue bloods of college football. It's one trip a year. For example, if we added Texas & Oklahoma they could set up the pods along the lines of (this was done quickly)...

Ohio State/Michigan/Rutgers/Purdue
Penn State/Nebraska/Maryland/Indiana
Oklahoma/Texas/Iowa/Minnesota/
Wisconsin/Michigan State/Northwestern/Illinois

The key would be balance based upon long term projections. Now this could play into Penn State's favor early on but Frost should get Nebraska back to being "at least' solid. I don't see any reason Maryland, Rutgers and Penn State need to be in the same pod.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

Well granted, I haven't figured out the details. Maybe there's be an overarching authority that partially determines who plays who, like the NFL does with the NFL teams. I'm sure schools would be reluctant to give that power away but if they could be convinced it would be beneficial then, maybe.

I'm under no illusion this would happen anytime soon but I'm thinking bigger picture, longer term.

Long term I think we see conferences of something like 32-48 teams basically splitting FBS into 3 levels. I don't see there ever being a situation where a lot of teams are independent or all scheduling is controlled by them. The elite programs (Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia, etc) can legitimately make the Northwesterns, Pitts, Cals, NC States of the world irrelevant. When will money trump everything else? Sooner than later IMO

 

[MJG-90]

When will money trump everything else?

As soon as these kids start getting paid. It's talked about enough that it's almost certain to happen eventually.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

As soon as these kids start getting paid. It's talked about enough that it's almost certain to happen eventually.

Hopefully that day comes sooner than later then

 

[Op2]

Long term I think we see conferences of something like 32-48 teams basically splitting FBS into 3 levels. I don't see there ever being a situation where a lot of teams are independent or all scheduling is controlled by them. The elite programs (Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia, etc) can legitimately make the Northwesterns, Pitts, Cals, NC States of the world irrelevant. When will money trump everything else? Sooner than later IMO

It seems to me that the problem with a final set of teams that are quasi-official "big time," like 32 or 48 or 64 or whatever, is that whoever gets left out screams bloody murder (and gets their US Senators involved too). Which is another way of saying that college football is sort of too popular for its own good.

 

[Op2]

As soon as these kids start getting paid. It's talked about enough that it's almost certain to happen eventually.

They're already paid, albeit it in a currency they may not be interested in.

The larger problem as I see it is (1) football and men's basketball players are paid way less than they bring in and (2) all the other college athletes are paid way more than they bring in.

So that itself is a discrepancy. Paying football players more lessens problem #1 but makes problem #2 worse.

 

[PSUinSTL]

You think this is close to being as good as the current Big Ten? Seriously?
Everyone needs to accept the fact that if conferences continue to exist in this manner we're never leaving--nor should we.

BIG -
Major/Top (National Brands/History/Good-Great more than not/Have MNC or resources to win one)- Nebraska/Michigan/Ohio State
Good/Great Programs (Win consistently - lack long term history - don't move needle unless highly ranked)- MSU/Wisconsin
Solid Programs (Can have good seasons - but are usually average or worse) - NW/Minny/Iowa/Purdue/Maryland
Bad Programs - Illinois/Indiana/Rutgers

New Conference Proposed
Major Top - FSU/ND/Miami/Clemson
Good/Programs - VT/WVU
Solid Programs - Pitt/BC/Syracuse/Maryland/UVA
Bad Programs - Rutgers/East Carolina

You could debate the merits of OSU being better than FSU/Clemson or Wisconsin vs VT /etc but if you objectively look at the teams and what the perception/results are - the conferences would be similar. You could also argue my placing of teams - but all in all I think it would be comparable.

Who would you take on neutral field
Clemson - OSU
ND- Michigan
Miami - Nebraska
FSU - Wisconsin
VT - MSU
WVU - Iowa
Pitt - Purdue
UVA - Minnesota
BC - NW
Syracuse - Indiana
East Carolina - ILL

Objectively - I would 3-4 BIG programs as ahead (Illinois, MSU, Indiana, NW)
I would place 3 'new' programs above BIG (UVA/FSU/Miami).
The rest are essentially even.

 

[PSUinSTL]

Revenue wise this configuration sucks ass. It's the ACC with one teams that are contributors to marginal revenue (PSU), three that are break even (ND, Rutgers and Maryland) and two drags (WVU and ECU).

From an economic sense, PSU is better staying where it is.

How do you figure - The national draw would be as big.

The BIG has huge boost in revenue from MD/NJ/PA - which would shift. Throw in VA, NC and Florida and New York.

If the new conference could secure a Conference network with similar costs to the BTN - it would probably be a wash

PSU was the key to the BIG 10 Financial success. Before 1993 - it was BIG2/Little 8. They would be very similar the BIG12 payouts. PSU added alot financially to the conference.

 

[ClarkstonMark]

How do you figure - The national draw would be as big.

The BIG has huge boost in revenue from MD/NJ/PA - which would shift. Throw in VA, NC and Florida and New York.

If the new conference could secure a Conference network with similar costs to the BTN - it would probably be a wash

PSU was the key to the BIG 10 Financial success. Before 1993 - it was BIG2/Little 8. They would be very similar the BIG12 payouts. PSU added alot financially to the conference.

Because that conference will not get payouts any more than the current ACC

 

[Art]

How do you figure - The national draw would be as big.

The BIG has huge boost in revenue from MD/NJ/PA - which would shift. Throw in VA, NC and Florida and New York.

If the new conference could secure a Conference network with similar costs to the BTN - it would probably be a wash

PSU was the key to the BIG 10 Financial success. Before 1993 - it was BIG2/Little 8. They would be very similar the BIG12 payouts. PSU added alot financially to the conference.

What does this even mean? PSU has been in the Big Ten for more than 20 years. How much are it's media rights worth? Let's make it easier. Rutgers and Maryland are recent additions. What are their rights worth? And don't be stupid and cite before and after numbers. Media rights deals have been increasing without conference additions, so isolating the value of new members is impossible using a total conference number.

Do you have one that is school specific? I do. ND, $15mm p.a. So take that, the ACC's current revenue of $420mm, and tell me how you get to more than $720mm (Big Ten revenue) by adding Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, West Virginia, and ECU? That's $300mm just to keep PSU treading water and not including the diminution of value from eliminating the North Carolina schools and Georgia Tech.

 

[Art]

Because that conference will not get payouts any more than the current ACC

Maybe it does, but it puts PSU behind a very large Eight Ball, $20mm p.a. large.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

BIG -
Major/Top (National Brands/History/Good-Great more than not/Have MNC or resources to win one)- Nebraska/Michigan/Ohio State
Good/Great Programs (Win consistently - lack long term history - don't move needle unless highly ranked)- MSU/Wisconsin
Solid Programs (Can have good seasons - but are usually average or worse) - NW/Minny/Iowa/Purdue/Maryland
Bad Programs - Illinois/Indiana/Rutgers

New Conference Proposed
Major Top - FSU/ND/Miami/Clemson
Good/Programs - VT/WVU
Solid Programs - Pitt/BC/Syracuse/Maryland/UVA
Bad Programs - Rutgers/East Carolina

You could debate the merits of OSU being better than FSU/Clemson or Wisconsin vs VT /etc but if you objectively look at the teams and what the perception/results are - the conferences would be similar. You could also argue my placing of teams - but all in all I think it would be comparable.

Who would you take on neutral field
Clemson - OSU
ND- Michigan
Miami - Nebraska
FSU - Wisconsin
VT - MSU
WVU - Iowa
Pitt - Purdue
UVA - Minnesota
BC - NW
Syracuse - Indiana
East Carolina - ILL

Objectively - I would 3-4 BIG programs as ahead (Illinois, MSU, Indiana, NW)
I would place 3 'new' programs above BIG (UVA/FSU/Miami).
The rest are essentially even.

We completely disagree. If anything the objective should be to add a team like Miami or FSU to the Big Ten not for us to leave.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

How do you figure - The national draw would be as big.

The BIG has huge boost in revenue from MD/NJ/PA - which would shift. Throw in VA, NC and Florida and New York.

If the new conference could secure a Conference network with similar costs to the BTN - it would probably be a wash

PSU was the key to the BIG 10 Financial success. Before 1993 - it was BIG2/Little 8. They would be very similar the BIG12 payouts. PSU added alot financially to the conference.

So much of this is wrong

 

[ivan brunetti]

Delco, media and marketing power is in the EST zone. I’m sure they could be a leader in forming a new, modern day, relevant and sustainable conference instead of bowing to Chicago and the big 2.... From Boston to Miami, thru NYC, Philly, DC, and ATL.... huge base and PSU could be a top dog. They started the conference realignment in the early nineties. Why not start it up again? The brand is strong and getting stronger. The B1G will never change its power base. That’s why ND has told them repeatedly to FO.

In terms of athletic money per school, the Big Ten dwarfs the "getting stronger" ACC.

 

[PSUinSTL]

What does this even mean? PSU has been in the Big Ten for more than 20 years. How much are it's media rights worth? Let's make it easier. Rutgers and Maryland are recent additions. What are their rights worth? And don't be stupid and cite before and after numbers. Media rights deals have been increasing without conference additions, so isolating the value of new members is impossible using a total conference number.

Do you have one that is school specific? I do. ND, $15mm p.a. So take that, the ACC's current revenue of $420mm, and tell me how you get to more than $720mm (Big Ten revenue) by adding Penn State, Maryland, Rutgers, West Virginia, and ECU? That's $300mm just to keep PSU treading water and not including the diminution of value from eliminating the North Carolina schools and Georgia Tech.

PSU would add a lot. ND isn't in the TV deal. Yes - the ACC probably gets a bump from having 2-3 home games a year vs them - but NDs rights aren't in there.

The numbers aren't apples to oranges. The BIG includes the BTN - and the ACC doesn't. As stated - it would be viable if the new conference had a network similar to the BTN.

FL - ~ 4 million subscribers
NY - ~ 4 million subscribers
PA - ~ 2.5 Million subscribers
NC- ~ 2.5 Million subscribers
NJ - ~ 2 Million subscribers
VA - ~ 2 Million subscribers
MA - ~ 2 Million subscribers
IN - ~ 1.5 Million Subscribers
MD- ~ 1.5 Million Subscribers
SC- ~ 1.5 Million Subscribers
WV - .4 Million Subscribers

Current BIG States
NJ ~ 2 million
PA ~ 2 Million
OH ~ 2 million
MI ~ 2 Million
IL - ~ 2 Million
IN - ~ 1.5 Million Subscribers
MD- ~ 1.5 Million Subscribers
WI ~ 1.5 Million Subscribers
MN~ 1.5 Million Subscribers
IA - ~ .75 Million Subscribers
NE ~ .4 Million Subscribers


This is ~ 24 million subscribers in the new conference vs. ~ 15 million in the BIG. (I took about 1/5 - 1/4 of the population per state to calculate subscribers. Obviously it isn't perfect but since both were calculated via same method - the new states would have more population and thus more subscribers.

So the new conference would make MORE for the conference network.
The national contract (think ESPN/FOX) - would likely be a wash as even though there are more 'top names' in the new conferences the fan bases aren't as big either.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

I don't believe for a second anyone thinks there's more money for us by leaving the Big Ten...it's just that people still can't accept we're in the Big Ten decades after it happened. The people on the team weren't even alive before we were in the Big Ten. This is our reality and it's perfect for us. We're lucky to have the Big Ten and they're luck to have us.

 

[Op2]

It occurs to me that when talking about the money that comes in and trying to project what it will be future, it would be best to determine as specifically as possible where the money will come from and why that much will come. IOW, what variables are actually affecting it and how might they change in the future.

Note that I have the answer to that but I think that is the question. Just pointing to what happens now isn't necessarily relevant for the future. For example, cable subscribers automatically paying a monthly amount for the B10 or SEC networks, now doesn't necessarily matter if those networks will be a la carte in the future.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

Now if someone wants to come up with a theory of us joining the SEC east with Virginia Tech (Penn State, Va Tech, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, Kentucky & South Carolina) then I'll listen to switching conferences...other than that there's no logic behind moves--just emotion.