Because they didnt need Rutgers to get a dollar per subscriber. BTN was already in NJ before Rutgers was in the BTN. They were getting 25 cents per subscriber. All they had to do was threaten to pull it and enough PSU, OSU, Mich fans, etc in NJ would have threatened to leave. They didnt need Rutgers.
Utah to the ACC?
- Thread starter RINGGOLD94
- Start date
Because they didnt need Rutgers to get a dollar per subscriber. BTN was already in NJ before Rutgers was in the BTN. They were getting 25 cents per subscriber. All they had to do was threaten to pull it and enough PSU, OSU, Mich fans, etc in NJ would have threatened to leave. They didnt need Rutgers.
Well, they doubled their revenue within a few years by doing what they did. So, while I'm not going to pretend to know the exact ins and outs that went into it, it's safe to say they didn't mess up as badly as you're suggesting.
This is a sure thing.
I've never been so positive of something in my life.
They did mess up pretty bad. Rutgers wasnt needed. They had to cut in Rutgers on B10 revenue when they added little to no value.
I could be mis-remembering, but didn’t the Big Ten want to add eastern schools to appease Penn State?
So you think the Big Ten Network/Fox could've gone to Time Warner cable and said "We know PSU isn't in market, but they're really popular in NYC so we want you to put BTN on your expanded basic tier and make everyone in the city pay for it". LOL
Why do you constantly double down when you're blatantly wrong? This isn't a differing opinion thing. You needed a team that is in the local market to get on the biggest cable tier. That's it. They secured the largest market in America by adding Rutgers. Otherwise they'd be on an ala carte sports tier and only make money on those who chose to add that on as opposed to everyone with cable.
Yep. 100%. Because, "hey NYC, we know you never heard of Rutgers football but we want to charge all your cable subscribers $1 /month to watch their games" isnt exactly a great selling point either.
The B10 could have absolutely gotten $1/subscriber in NY/NJ by threatening to pull it without Rutgers. There's enough PSU fans there plus other B10 diploma mill fans.
Maybe that's how you think it was supposed to work, but that isn't how it worked. Sorry, it's just a fact.
Sorry, but the #3 team in NJ wasnt needed to get $1/subscriber. I understand that you would like to believe that they were needed but I assure you they were not. It was a mistake by the Big Ten.
With 1.2 million alumni from Washington, D.C., to southern Connecticut and 26 million people within a 50-mile radius of New York City, the expansion added 3 percent to the Big Ten’s geography but 18 percent of its total population.
The total dispersal to Big Ten members jumped from $317.2 million in fiscal 2014 — the final year without Maryland and Rutgers — to $684.6 million in fiscal 2018
As was pointed out the first time that someone posted that, it is completely and utterly ridiculous, as was evidenced by what actually happened when conferences were looking to add schools.
The notion that Stanford is the most valuable non-Notre Dame school in the ACC is batshit crazy, and you'd have to be in idiot to believe it. The notion that Cal is fourth most valuable may be even stupider.
What you posted is irrelevant. Maryland was a good add. Its a proud programs with a fanbase and a good market. Rutgers is a nothing. A never was. So I don't care what your combined numbers say. The numbers dont say anything anyway because there were Big Ten alums along the I95 corrdior before Rutgers and Maryland. It makes it sound like Rutgers and Maryland needed to be added to "count" the OSU alums living in NJ.
Listen, I get that you are a believer in the B10 press releases and are buying their good news about the additions. And I'm telling you that its BS. Dont believe what you read. Better yet, ask the Dude, Greg Swaim, or the Baylor student that has that Locked On podcast what they think. They are the experts after all.
Stanford isnt. But its also not as low as you think. Its probably like
1. FSU
2. UNC
3. Clem
Drop
UVa, VT, NC St, Cal, Stan, Miami all somewhat similar
Drop
Pitt, Syr, Lou, GT, Duke
Drop
BC
Wake
SMU
You know that there are markets all over the country that don't get channels with the local sports teams on them because the cable/satellite company won't pay the price, right?
And yet you somehow think that those same companies are going to pay extra to show a channel with only out of market teams on it. Good god man, you are being ridiculous. If they could have gotten that kind of money without a local market team, why do you suppose that they didn't? Because if they could do that and they didn't then that would make them morons.
If you want to argue that Stanford is something like 8th then you are a lot closer to what I think, and more importantly a lot closer to the truth, than the twitter dope that you are quoting.
And Cal is way behind Stanford.
Cal will immediately enter as the third-largest school by enrollment in the conference and one of the largest alumni bases in the conference, they’re the flagship land grant school in the largest state in the country, they’re located in one of the wealthiest areas and markets in the world, and they’re one of the best athletic departments in the country and one of the best universities in the world.
Cal is a great school.
Being a great school has absolutely nothing to do with what someone is worth in the current media landscape.
I am agreeing with the other guys where Rutgers was added mostly just for the Big 10 Network and the in-market rate for NY. I remember Delaney's weird press conference announcing Rutgers and Maryland and he paraphrased that the Big 10 Network was the driver for expansion.
People are arguing that one of the reasons Cal/Stanford/and SMU was added was due to increased revenue for the ACCN - meaning that all California and Texas residents that have ACCN in one of their tv packages will see their bill increase about a $1 due to the ACCN in-market rates. I am not believing that. I don't think it is as black and white as that, and I think the "rules" have changed since back when Rutgers/Maryland were added. It can't be now that you can add any school and say to ESPN, "Aha, we got you, pay up!" where ESPN would then charge Comcast, YouTube Tv, etc. which would charge the screwed over state residents. Though a good school, SMU is the #1 popular school for about 10 blocks in the Dallas area and that is about it in all of Texas.
It was from a NYT interview with the Big Ten commissioner. Take it u with him if you know more than he does lol. Enjoy the rest of your trolling this evening.
Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The B12 was interested and talking with the "four corner" schools nearly two years before it actually happened. In fact, I can pull up messages from 2022 where you suggest it is laughable to think Arizona or any other Pac12 schools would join the B12. Once again, you were wrong on that prediction too.
Stanford & Cal were never in the discussion or under any serious consideration. Neither moves the needle in either of the big 2 sports and both have ridiculously low fan engagement. The only thing they offer is great academics and, sorry, but ESPN, FOX, CBS could give two shits about that.
None of us can truly know what these conferences/networks are looking at in these valuations. But it amazes me how bad some are at following the path of what has literally already happened.
The Big Ten didn't need Rutgers, but they took them anyway just to be silly.
Stanford and Cal are eternal springs of ROI, yet the Big Ten didn't want to make more money when it could have gotten each without any strings attached at a discounted price.
The Big Ten didn't need Rutgers, but they took them anyway just to be silly.
Stanford and Cal are eternal springs of ROI, yet the Big Ten didn't want to make more money when it could have gotten each without any strings attached at a discounted price.
I realize you think the Big 12 leaders are idiots but I promise you they are not as dumb as you think they are. There isn't a sane person who would take a duplicate Utah team or a duplicate Arizona team over a Cal or Stanford. I am sorry. Nobody is that stupid. Cal and Stanford werent interested and the B12 takes anyone so they went with the duplicates. Easy as that. Now move along.
Stanford wouldn’t be caught dead associating itself with the junior colleges in the B12. They are one of the most prestigious universities in the country and would prefer being an Independent rather than traveling to outposts like Morgantown.
And Big 12 gonna say, "no, we didnt even consider one of the world's most prestigious universities, which also happens to be located in one of the most populated areas in the country and who has a name brand football team. Give us Duplicate Utah instead."
Right.... Because it's been proven that having duplicate teams in Alabama, Florida, North Carolina, Texas...hell, even Michigan don't make sense. The "holy war" between BYU and Utah will automatically be a national game of interest with TV ratings that will likely be better than any game the ACC will be able to offer up this year.
Keep being dense...you're very good at it.
Utah and BYU could have played out of conference and it would have been a B12 game every other year.
Also, if conferences were made from scratch today, Mich/MSU, Alabama/Auburn, UNC/NC St would be split up. Its all about TV and duplicate markets make no sense. Those conferences were made before TV contracs. Conference-making in 1920 is much different than today. Again, I am sorry, but the B12 isnt that stupid. They would have taken Cal and Stanford if either wanted in. Neither did.
Colorado has one winning season in the past 20 years. Stanford has 5 top 10 finishes over the past 15 years.
Proven?
Dude....those membership decisions were made decades ago.
You really want to comp Alabama and Florida with what is going on TODAY in the B12?
Credibility shrinks to zero......
Similar threads
