Rutgers & Maryland Join Big Ten

[Atlas]

Welcome to 2011 argath, lol...

 

[NAHSTE]

:natsplayoffs:

 

[Juggernaut]

As someone who doesn't follow college football at all besides Rutgers, what does this move mean for them? Are we still in the Big East this year and moving next year?

Totally clueless on this matter.

 

[Influence]

As someone who doesn't follow college football at all besides Rutgers, what does this move mean for them? Are we still in the Big East this year and moving next year?

Totally clueless on this matter.

Welcome to the B1G!

 

[Argath]

Welcome to 2011 argath, lol...

I never paid any attention to this clusterfuck of a mess till it involved Maryland sorry if I'm late to the party

 

[mgoblue2290]

This is terrible. Why even both pretending like your region has anything to do with your conference at this point?

 

[Senser81]

I think this is the beginning of another massive conference realignment, which kind of sucks because we just had massive conference realignment a couple years ago. The light at the end of the tunnel is that college football is going to a playoff system in a couple years (after 2014?), and I think the goal of all the conference commissioners is to get the landscape set up for a 4-team playoff with no "BCS rankings" or "bowl selection committees".

The Big10 has always been after another East coast team to pair with Penn State, and Rutgers gives them that. A large school with decent academics that allegedly gives the Big10 the NJ/NY market. I don't know what Maryland brings to the table, but it does give the Big10 a foothold in the DC market and strengthens their hold on the Northeast. I foresee the Big10 trying to get Pitt and Syracuse, possibly Boston College, and perhaps taking Missouri off the SECs hands. This would give the Big10 a pretty large East/Midwest area, with 18-20 teams forming two divisions.

The other conferences would do likewise. The PAC12 would pick up some schools from the WAC/MWC like Boise St. and Fresno St. The Big12 would have to step up and take in some Plains states schools like BYU, and they would also add some of the smaller Texas schools. I could also see them trying to get Texas A&M and Arkansas back. The Big12 would be the big winner here, because they would edge out the ACC for the 4th "superconference" spot.

The SEC has the most to gain and the most to lose, so to speak. They are already a large conference, somewhat weighed down by Kentucky, Vanderbilt, the Mississipi schools, and Missouri. They could jettison Missouri. The Big12 would probably pay them for Texas A&M. That would free up space for the SEC to cherry pick schools from the ACC. They could add FSU, Clemson, G-Tech, etc. into the fold.

The tricky part is what to do with basketball schools like Duke and North Carolina. I don't know what happens to them.

So, in the end, you have 4 super conferences. Each conference has two divisions, with 9-10 teams in each division. There is no cross-divisional play. The division winners face off in the conference championship game. The winners of the four conference championship games are automatically given one of the 4 playoff spots in the new playoff system. Pretty simple.

 

[JeremyHight]

The problem with your thinking, senser, although it is completely rational from a location standpoint, is that these conferences want markets, not just teams. If the Big Ten just wanted to get up to 20 good teams, they would swoop up anyone of note in the MAC and be done with it. However, they want the markets that teams like Rutgers and Maryland represent. Look at the SEC, some presidents have outright said they would vote against teams whose markets are already represented in the conference. What point is there to add Clemson and Florida State when they already have Florida and South Carolina? Instead, SEC went after Texas A&M and Missouri because of the markets they represented.

I could see the big conferences going to 16 easily, but anything past that becomes a clusterfuck where conferences become bloated. 16 to me sounds like the magic number. 7 in division games, 1-2 cross division games, and the rest OOC.

 

[Senser81]

The problem with your thinking, senser, although it is completely rational from a location standpoint, is that these conferences want markets, not just teams. If the Big Ten just wanted to get up to 20 good teams, they would swoop up anyone of note in the MAC and be done with it. However, they want the markets that teams like Rutgers and Maryland represent. Look at the SEC, some presidents have outright said they would vote against teams whose markets are already represented in the conference. What point is there to add Clemson and Florida State when they already have Florida and South Carolina? Instead, SEC went after Texas A&M and Missouri because of the markets they represented.

I think the whole "market issue" is a nebulous thing, though. Right now, conferences make money when their teams play in bowl games. They make more money when their teams play in major bowl games. This year, the Big10 and the SEC are 'losing' money so to speak, because they don't have enough good teams to fill up their bowl slots. Also, the Big10 won't have a team in the title game and its possible the SEC won't too. It doesn't matter if the Big10 has the east coast market or whatever...thats lost revenue because their football teams suck. The SEC would have made more money this year by adding FSU as opposed to Missouri, regardless of market.

 

[Atlas]

No they wouldn't have senser, b/c it's all about tv markets and pitching How many markets they have to ESPN, CBS, etc., and their potential subscriber base for their own conference channels (b1g already has one, sec wants one badly and the others, save for the ACC are looking into them)... Bowl money is minuscule compared to how much conferences get for tv deals...

 

[JeremyHight]

No they wouldn't have senser, b/c it's all about tv markets and pitching How many markets they have to ESPN, CBS, etc., and their potential subscriber base for their own conference channels (b1g already has one, sec wants one badly and the others, save for the ACC are looking into them)... Bowl money is minuscule compared to how much conferences get for tv deals...

Exactly. With the BCS games right now, teams got paid 17,000,000 last year for appearing in a BCS game. If a conference got two BCS bids, they don't get the full 34,000,000, they actually get a slightly smaller value for the 2nd game. That may seem like a lot of money, but when you include splitting that among the schools in the conference like most conferences do in some way, it isn't nearly that much. In comparison, just for the ESPN/Fox rights of the Big XII, each team gets about 20,000,000 per season. In the Big Ten, its even bigger because they split the ESPN/ABC contract and the Big Ten Network revenue. 17,000,000 split 12 ways doesn't even come close to touching that.

 

[Senser81]

No they wouldn't have senser, b/c it's all about tv markets and pitching How many markets they have to ESPN, CBS, etc., and their potential subscriber base for their own conference channels (b1g already has one, sec wants one badly and the others, save for the ACC are looking into them)... Bowl money is minuscule compared to how much conferences get for tv deals...

Did CBS renegotiate their TV contract with the SEC because they added Missouri and Texas A&M? Does CBS get huge ratings when they televise the Missouri-Mississipi State game? Does the increase in TV money offset the fact that the SEC now has two more mouths to feed?

Again, its still nebulous to me. Yeah, the Big10 can pitch that they have the NJ/NY and Washington DC markets now that they've added Rutgers and Maryland, but to the people in those areas really follow those schools? No, they don't. Is their going to be a huge NY area subscriber uptick for the Big10 network, because now everyone on Manhattan Island just HAS to see the women's volleyball matchup between Rutgers and Michigan State?

 

[Senser81]

Exactly. With the BCS games right now, teams got paid 17,000,000 last year for appearing in a BCS game. If a conference got two BCS bids, they don't get the full 34,000,000, they actually get a slightly smaller value for the 2nd game. That may seem like a lot of money, but when you include splitting that among the schools in the conference like most conferences do in some way, it isn't nearly that much. In comparison, just for the ESPN/Fox rights of the Big XII, each team gets about 20,000,000 per season. In the Big Ten, its even bigger because they split the ESPN/ABC contract and the Big Ten Network revenue. 17,000,000 split 12 ways doesn't even come close to touching that.

But the TV money is constant. My point is that the TV money isn't going to change because the Big10 added Maryland or the SEC added Missouri because those are "untapped markets". To use your example, do you think the SEC would have gotten more TV money from adding FSU or Missouri?

 

[Atlas]

Yes senser, the sec renegotiated with ESPN and CBS to accommodate the additional schools, just like the b1g and every other conference will do when they add schools (with a caveat to do it again should they add more schools)...

 

[Senser81]

Yes senser, the sec renegotiated with ESPN and CBS to accommodate the additional schools, just like the b1g and every other conference will do when they add schools (with a caveat to do it again should they add more schools)...

What was the SEC's new deal compared to their old deal? Just curious what the increase was.

 

[Atlas]

What was the SEC's new deal compared to their old deal? Just curious what the increase was.

I think they were getting $18 mill per year, per school and now they are getting around $28 mill per year, per school...

edit: another thing to consider with the ACC is how pissed the football schools were that the ACC didn't let the schools retain their 3rd tier rights, where schools like FSU and Clemson could have made an additional $10 mill per year...

 

[Senser81]

I think they were getting $18 mill per year, per school and now they are getting around $28 mill per year, per school...

Do you have a link/source?

Also, was the $10M increase due to the SEC gaining the St. Louis and Texas Tumbleweed markets? If the SEC had added, say, FSU and Clemson instead of TAMU & Mizzou, would they have only gotten a $5M increase due to lack of 'market exposure'?

 

[Atlas]

Do you have a link/source?

Also, was the $10M increase due to the SEC gaining the St. Louis and Texas Tumbleweed markets? If the SEC had added, say, FSU and Clemson instead of TAMU & Mizzou, would they have only gotten a $5M increase due to lack of 'market exposure'?

I'm on my phone right now, so no, but I'm going by what I have seen/read over the past year (they may still be negotiating, since Slive is deadset on launching the SEC network by 2014 and that will cause some issues)... And in short, yes, it was b/c of the added markets and the millions of potential subscribers they have a chance of getting to sign on... Go back to when the ACC raided the Big East the first time, getting VT and Miami, which where no brainers, and then passing over an established football power for BC (b/c they wanted the market and not the athletics prowess)... UF, UGA and USCe want no part of FSU, GT and Clemson in the SEC, mostly for recruiting, but they also understand the electronic footprint of the conference is more important than adding the best available football teams (case in point, adding Mizzou over WVU or Louisville)... TV markets and their impact on TV deals rules the day right now, so we kind of all have to fall in line and deal with it...

 

[Sportsbuck]

There's talk of UNC to the B1G

 

[Atlas]

There's talk of UNC to the B1G

UVA and GT have been reaching out to the b1g for a while (GT also is talking to the b12), but if they take UNC and UVA, the ACC is dunzo, b/c VT and NCSU will bolt for the SEC and GT, FSU and Clemson will likely be a part of the b12 (along with some combo of Miami, Louisville, Pitt, Cincy, and maybe even ND)...