Started By
Message
Does the Big Ten now regret the Maryland and Rutgers additions?
Posted on 8/18/22 at 6:48 pm
Posted on 8/18/22 at 6:48 pm
Especially with cord cutting increasingly reducing the conference’s ability to charge people in Washington DC and NYC for games they don’t actually watch.
And Rutgers being even worse in Big 10 football than even the biggest skeptics would have predicted a decade ago.
And Texas, Oklahoma and USC setting a new standard for conference expansion candidates.
And Rutgers being even worse in Big 10 football than even the biggest skeptics would have predicted a decade ago.
And Texas, Oklahoma and USC setting a new standard for conference expansion candidates.
7
Posted on 8/18/22 at 6:50 pm to Bayou445
quote:
And Rutgers being even worse in Big 10 football than even the biggest skeptics would have predicted a decade ago.
Dude did you not know Rutgers signed the best coach in the NCAA? Had Tennessee not ran him off we'd have been on the middle of a run right now that would make Saban look pedestrian. It's like you don't even read the rant.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 6:51 pm to Bayou445
No, lots of B1G grads move east after graduation so more B1G alumni there than in their actual footprint. Also, it was not about adding Terps and Knights as much as it was to allow the B1G (namely tOSU and UM) to recruit MD and NJ
This post was edited on 8/18/22 at 6:56 pm
Posted on 8/18/22 at 6:52 pm to Bayou445
Lol, no…they have the New York/Jersey and DC tv market.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 6:57 pm to Cheese Grits
Is Maryland really that fertile of a recruiting ground? New Jersey is a fertile recruiting ground, but somehow Rutgers has always been bad anyway.
I mean, by the standard you’re citing, the Big 10 also could have added Rice or something to get into the even more fertile Texas recruiting grounds.
I mean, by the standard you’re citing, the Big 10 also could have added Rice or something to get into the even more fertile Texas recruiting grounds.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:01 pm to Bayou445
Back in the day Nebraska recruited the East Coast pretty heavy and they won lots of MNC's in a small population state. Not sure about MD (the state) but the Baltimore and DC MSA used to produce recruits. They just went to places like Notre Dame and Nebraska instead of Maryland or Rutgers.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:05 pm to WildcatMike
quote:
ns?
Lol, no…they have the New York/Jersey and DC tv market.
This is all there is to it. Has nothing to do with recruiting or rivalries and certainly not athletic prowess. Rutgers was allowed in because they wanted NYC.
It's the same reason Mizzou got into the SEC. It had nothing to do with access to the fertile recruiting grounds that Missouri is known for (
), it had to do with getting eyeballs from a mid-sized state with a pair of fairly large cities on the conference.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:10 pm to Bayou445
Besides the NY and DC markets, the conference was concerned that Penn State felt isolated way out East on their own, and might be tempted by an offer to join the ACC. So, taking Maryland from the ACC, and bringing along Rutgers, secured their Eastern flank.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:11 pm to theGarnetWay
I’m pretty sure that WildcatMike was being sarcastic. The idea that Rutgers even brings the NJ tv market (let alone NYC) is a joke. It’s like the idea of Rice bringing the Houston TV market or something.
This post was edited on 8/18/22 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:13 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
Also, it was not about adding Terps and Knights as much as it was to allow the B1G (namely tOSU and UM) to recruit MD and NJ
SO, teams can only recruit in a state if their conference has a team in that state?
Why doesn't every conference add a team from FL, TX, and CA then?
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:19 pm to multicampus
Yeah, I agree, totally.
If your standard is recruiting grounds, then the Big Ten should have added Rice, FAU, and San Diego State. (Before USC and UCLA gave the Big Ten a presence in California.)
Especially with these larger conferences reducing how often you play each team, are recruits seriously going to care that their parents might get to see them play something like one time in their entire college career?
If your standard is recruiting grounds, then the Big Ten should have added Rice, FAU, and San Diego State. (Before USC and UCLA gave the Big Ten a presence in California.)
Especially with these larger conferences reducing how often you play each team, are recruits seriously going to care that their parents might get to see them play something like one time in their entire college career?
This post was edited on 8/18/22 at 7:21 pm
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:21 pm to theGarnetWay
quote:
This is all there is to it. Has nothing to do with recruiting or rivalries and certainly not athletic prowess. Rutgers was allowed in because they wanted NYC.
People speculate but that is the actual reason for conference expansion. We all know that now but back when it first started happening c.2011 I took a class taught by LSU President John Lombardi and he said acquiring TV markets is the reason for conference expansion.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:22 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
namely tOSU and UM) to recruit MD and NJ
Lol. Yeah what a prize. All those 5* from those states were staying in-state. Had to cut in on that pipeline
Terrible take
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:23 pm to The Boat
I’ve been to NYC twice before. I saw plenty of Notre Dame fans, and a small number of PSU fans, but I honestly don’t remember seeing a single Rutgers fan.
This post was edited on 8/18/22 at 7:37 pm
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:35 pm to Bayou445
quote:
I’m pretty sure that WildcatMike was being sarcastic. The idea that Rutgers even brings the NJ tv market (let alone NYC) is a joke. It
It’s not about Rutgers having some massive NYC fan base, it’s about getting enough of them to care so the BTN could get in the market.
quote:
Rutgers -- and Maryland, for that matter -- is valuable because it adds teams. That gives the Big Ten a chance to reopen its TV deal with ESPN and make a good-faith effort to address the increased value of the new teams before the conclusion of the deal in 2017.
The true money for the Big Ten Network is for the Rutgers fan base to drive carriers to put the Big Ten Network on its basic tier so it can automatically generate subscriber fees for every customer even if they have no interest in the channel. But New York is not an easy market. Yeah
I believe the BTN did in fact get access to NYC shortly after and got a large boost. You only need a small percentage of people in a city that large to care to get millions of additional eyeballs on the Big 10.
LINK
quote:
Reflecting the Scarlet Knights and the Terrapins becoming members of the conference’s eastern division, Big Ten Network, through a series of upgrades with distributors in the New York and Washington D.C. areas, has bolstered its subscriber count by some 15% since the end of the 2013-14 academic year.
President Mark Silverman said when upgrades are completed before the Aug. 28 kickoff of the football season the Big Ten Network will count some 60 million subscribers and be available to 90 million homes within the 14-member conference’ 11-state footprint and throughout the country. That’s up from 52 million last spring for the joint venture among Fox Networks and the conference
This post was edited on 8/18/22 at 7:38 pm
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:38 pm to theGarnetWay
From my anecdotal evidence, it seems like Penn State actually has more fans in NYC than Rutgers. To be fair, I don’t think I ever traveled to the NJ suburbs while in NYC.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:40 pm to Bayou445
I spent 6 years in DC and felt like I saw as many PSU fans as I did Maryland or VT - the two closest major schools - if not more, but it wasn’t until Maryland got in did the BTN as well.
This post was edited on 8/18/22 at 7:41 pm
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:45 pm to theGarnetWay
That article is from 2014, before cord cutting. There don’t seem to be any articles about what Rutger’s value to the Big Ten is in 2022. (Let alone in a decade or so, at which point even more cord cutting will have occurred.)
Even when Maryland and Rutgers were invited, many people predicted that cord cutting would occur sooner or later. Maybe Maryland and Rutgers could have been profitable additions if they had been kicked out after 10 years or so in the conference. But conference expansions are 1,000 year decisions, not 10 year decisions.
Even when Maryland and Rutgers were invited, many people predicted that cord cutting would occur sooner or later. Maybe Maryland and Rutgers could have been profitable additions if they had been kicked out after 10 years or so in the conference. But conference expansions are 1,000 year decisions, not 10 year decisions.
Posted on 8/18/22 at 7:48 pm to theGarnetWay
Really? I live in the Florida panhandle, and I get the BTN at my house.
And actually I remember watching the 2007 App State vs Michigan game, which was the first game on the BTN. Maybe they had moved the App State game to ESPN by the time I started watching. But I’m 100% certain I had the BTN before 2014.
There are supposed to be higher carriage rates if the Big Ten has a presence in a TV market. But you can watch the BTN anywhere in the country. And carriage rates are becoming increasingly less important due to cord cutting.
And actually I remember watching the 2007 App State vs Michigan game, which was the first game on the BTN. Maybe they had moved the App State game to ESPN by the time I started watching. But I’m 100% certain I had the BTN before 2014.
There are supposed to be higher carriage rates if the Big Ten has a presence in a TV market. But you can watch the BTN anywhere in the country. And carriage rates are becoming increasingly less important due to cord cutting.
This post was edited on 8/19/22 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 8/18/22 at 8:02 pm to Bayou445
Maryland and Rutgers but us in 3 big markets with lots of alums from B1G schools already live. If that was not enough, the political connections it gave us was huge.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News