If and when the BIG expands

[m48tank]

It's still all about the money and at present BIG is where it's made.

As to paying athletes - what are you going to pay the third ranked (on your team) backstroker, or the fifth ranked long stick on the Lacrosse team?

 

[ivan brunetti]

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.

About the same amount of money. But if Nitt fans now think that the "conference is not fair", hoo boy, imagine being the only Yankee team in the SEC?

 

[78SweetRevenge]

About the same amount of money. But if Nitt fans now think that the "conference is not fair", hoo boy, imagine being the only Yankee team in the SEC?

The whole "conference is not fair" stuff is just nonsense that exists in every fan base...everyone is out to get us

 

[Op2]

It's still all about the money and at present BIG is where it's made.

As to paying athletes - what are you going to pay the third ranked (on your team) backstroker, or the fifth ranked long stick on the Lacrosse team?

That is it. People talk about paying college athletes because the high profile ones (football and men's basketball) bring in more than they make, but the vast majority (the rest) take more than they bring in. Making one problem better only makes the other one worse. The root problem is that two sports are wildly popular and all the rest aren't popular at all (in terms of being able to pay for themselves I mean).

 

[PSUinSTL]

Uh...….
Not sure if serious, but RIGHT NOW - using your "metrics" - the ACC has a larger (significantly) population in the states where they have a "home team", than the Big Ten does in their "footprint"...….

So, pray tell, why isn't the ACC bringing in mucho grande dinero w their media contracts?


Might wanna' rethink (or just scrap) that whole justification.

For a few reasons
1) The BIG has the BTN - this is significant.
2) The ACC has 4 teams in NC - which dillutes the value of NCs population as it isn't that population for 1-2 teams.
3) In most of their states - the ACC team is second most popular. Only FSU, Clemson can be considered in the conversation (Though SC is split with USCe, and UF might be top dog). Obviously VA/NC (and NC has 4 in the ACC) are owned by the SEC. Every other college is essentially an afterthought.
4) Other than Miami/FSU/Clemson and possibly VT - there isn't a national draw. I realize I included teams that weren't - but you can't have a conference of only great teams.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

That is it. People talk about paying college athletes because the high profile ones (football and men's basketball) bring in more than they make, but the vast majority (the rest) take more than they bring in. Making one problem better only makes the other one worse. The root problem is that two sports are wildly popular and all the rest aren't popular at all (in terms of being able to pay for themselves I mean).

Wouldn't they be paid based on the revenue they (their sport) helps generate? I'm not expecting wrestlers, volleyball players, etc to get paid. Football players bring in $--they'll get paid. Though do we have a title IX issue at that point? I have no idea but that could be problematic.

 

[Beachwineguy]

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.

Your math is quite flawed. Syracuse isn’t bringing 4 million viewers from NY. You’ve discounted the NYC market for the B1G, even though there is probably more support there for the Big Ten than the ACC. You’re giving a best case scenario for the ACC and worst case for the B1G. You’ve accounted for multiple schools in VA and NC, but disregarded them for Michigan, Illinois and Indiana.

Your post IS the weakest post. Goodbye!

 

[78SweetRevenge]

I'm still trying to comprehend someone wanting to be in this "North - Pitt, PSU, BC, ND, Rutgers, West Virginia, Syracuse South - Florida State, Miami, Maryland, VT, Clemson, East Carolina, UVA" conference. The last thing we should ever want is to be in a conference with Pitt & West Virginia. Some of this would have been great 30-35 years ago

 

[psuro]

Too many schools as it is. Why not kick out Purdue and Northwestern - does not reduce the footprint (TV revenue) but results in a stronger 12-school conference...where, incidentally, all the remaining schools can actually play each other on a fairly regular basis.

Because they have been with the conference since forever and they have not done anything to warrant being dismissed.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

Because they have been with the conference since forever and they have not done anything to warrant being dismissed.

This^^^^^^^^^^
Doesn't hurt that Northwestern and Purdue are better football teams than a few others either. I know it has nothing to do with revenue but Northwestern has been pretty solid for about a decade and Purdue is heading in the right direction with Brohm.

 

[Art]

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.

This is just a load of crap. Talk to me when you can translate into dollars, like 300mm of them.