All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > College Football > Maryland & Rutgers to Big Ten?
11/19/2012 3:35 PM
Bottomline, neither Rutgers or Maryland helps the Big10 on the field product.  Big10 still sucks and is still a one team conference.  Urban Meyer must be licking his chops today, knowing the Big10 just added 2 more cupcake games to the schedule.  Suck Football will not produce the ratings, time will tell.  Maybe Ohio State should just leave the Big 10 and become an independent, lords knows they could find better competition on their schedule.  I think today is one of the darkest days in Big10 history, adding Rutgers and Maryland should not be celebrated, it waters down the talent level in the conference and adds zero value from a marketing stand point.  The new Big10 is terrible
11/19/2012 3:37 PM
BTW, Nate Silver (yeah the political dude) posted a pretty interesting article a couple of years back. 

Essentially his data shows that Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State are the three most popular colleges in all of football (and are by a fairly wide margin).  They are followed by Notre Dame, Texas, Texas A&M, Auburn, Alabama, Florida, and Clemson. 

It is actually a pretty good read. 

thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/

The chart I posted earlier in this thread is from this article.  It clearly shows why Rutgers is coming to the Big Ten.  Maryland on the otherhand, makes less sense from a popularity standpoint (it will be the least popular school in the big ten), but when you consider that the Big Ten has none of the markets where Maryland gets its fans, it makes a lot more sense as an add.
11/19/2012 3:42 PM
As I said earlier, smarter people with more information makes these decisions.   There's no way that bringing in Rutgers/MD damages the B1G product or hurts revenues.  

Don't believe me, I'm just another dumbass on the internet, but say this out loud.   "I'm the commissioner of the B1G and bringing in Rutgers/MD will make our conference and bottomline worse."    Then ask yourself if that makes sense.
11/19/2012 3:47 PM
As has been repeatedly said, it's not about ratings - it's about cable subscribers, and the system is pretty well rigged in favor of the Big 10 on this one.  The only way Rutgers/MD won't be a massive revenue boost for the conference over time is if somehow they cause college football to become dramatically less popular in Ohio, Michigan, Nebraksa, etc.
11/19/2012 3:49 PM

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Ohio State fans are not going to get too excited about Rutgers or Maryland on the schedule.

I have no doubt Ohio State, Penn St, and Michigan are amongst the most popular colleges in america.  I also think they have 3 out of the 5 biggest alumni associations including yours truly.  I am a OSU grad but hate every minute of this Big10 expansion.  Don't get me wrong, I liked adding Nebraska, but Rutgers and Maryland will prove to be poor choices in due time.  Big10 doesn't need either school and will now have a waterdowned product.

11/19/2012 3:51 PM
Rutgers Athletics Sucks

Maryland Athletics Suck (with the exception of Lacrosse).

Lot of added value for Big10 today.  Way to improve the conference.

11/19/2012 3:59 PM
11/19/2012 4:19 PM
Posted by cravedogg on 11/19/2012 3:49:00 PM (view original):

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Ohio State fans are not going to get too excited about Rutgers or Maryland on the schedule.

I have no doubt Ohio State, Penn St, and Michigan are amongst the most popular colleges in america.  I also think they have 3 out of the 5 biggest alumni associations including yours truly.  I am a OSU grad but hate every minute of this Big10 expansion.  Don't get me wrong, I liked adding Nebraska, but Rutgers and Maryland will prove to be poor choices in due time.  Big10 doesn't need either school and will now have a waterdowned product.

As long as they don't become significantly less likely to be ****** if they can't get get the 3-4 Buckeye games a year the BTN carries due to their carrier not accepting BTN's terms, that doesn't matter from a revenue perspective, which is the only point anyone is arguing here.  From just about every other perspective, it's a bad move, but because of the way the Big 10 is setup with the BTN, it will dramatically increase revenue for the forseeable future, whether you choose to see it that way or not.

11/19/2012 5:42 PM (edited)
Where I live, ABC/CBS/ESPN/FOX show all the good games people want to watch.

ESPN3 shows all the crappy games that only alumni want to see.

Conf. channels show the shittiest games that even ESPN3 doesn't air.

Big10 crap seems to always come on in the noonish timeslot on ESPN/ESPN2. They also occasionally come on ABC. Is ABC or whatever blacked out in those areas if a big10 game is on (ie, is that game shown on the conference channel)? That seems impossible, since many big10 games are going on at the same time. I feel like they're just trying to add games to their conference channel, which only shows **** games no one watches. Am I missing something, or is that simply the goal? i.e., to take Rutgers/MD off the air and only be available in the new markets on their subpar conference channel? Is that the goal? If so, they are dicks. If I were a fan of one of those teams, I would resent that.

They're about even with the Big East/ACC in my eyes. What a joke. Better on-field product = better conference, at least in the long run, imo.
11/19/2012 5:59 PM
I forgot those generic CSN-type channels air 'conference channel' games for local teams. It seems like the big10 is just adding these teams so MD/Rutgers fans will have the games shown with a big10 logo in the corner, and while playing Iowa/Penn St/some other crappy team instead of the crappy teams they currently play. Apparently, the conference will get some cash for that. That might make them some money in the short-term, but the dilution of an already-weak conference seems like it would be a deterrent for future recruits. Maybe the teams can buy some new weights or overpay a star coach to come in, but it seems like 'greed now, suffer in the long term' to me.
11/19/2012 6:03 PM
I don't see TV contracts going down.   
11/19/2012 6:15 PM
NORTH----PENN ST.  PITT. SYRACUSE. OHIO ST. MICH. MICH ST. WISC. PURDUE. NOTRE DAME.W.VIRG. VIRGINIA.BOSTON COLL

WEST-USC, UCLA, STANFORD, OREGON, ORE.ST. BOISE ST. UNLV. ARIZONA ARIZ ST.WASH. WASH ST.. BYU

SOUTH- FLA. FL ST. MIAMI. LSU. ALABAMA. AUBURN GEORGIA. MISSISIPI. CLEMSON. S. CAROLINA. N. CAROLINA. GEORGIA TECH

MIDWEST- NEBRASKA, OKLAHOMA. OK. ST. , MISSOURI. TEXAS. TEXAS A+M. BAYLOR. KANSAS ST. KANSAS.TEXAS TECH, TCU .IOWA

EVERYBODY ELSE PLAYS FER DIVISION 1A TITLE IN LESSER CONFS. AND FOROR A CHANCE TO BUMP TEAMS AND " MOVE UP

11/19/2012 6:21 PM
Posted by inkdskn on 11/19/2012 5:42:00 PM (view original):
Where I live, ABC/CBS/ESPN/FOX show all the good games people want to watch.

ESPN3 shows all the crappy games that only alumni want to see.

Conf. channels show the shittiest games that even ESPN3 doesn't air.

Big10 crap seems to always come on in the noonish timeslot on ESPN/ESPN2. They also occasionally come on ABC. Is ABC or whatever blacked out in those areas if a big10 game is on (ie, is that game shown on the conference channel)? That seems impossible, since many big10 games are going on at the same time. I feel like they're just trying to add games to their conference channel, which only shows **** games no one watches. Am I missing something, or is that simply the goal? i.e., to take Rutgers/MD off the air and only be available in the new markets on their subpar conference channel? Is that the goal? If so, they are dicks. If I were a fan of one of those teams, I would resent that.

They're about even with the Big East/ACC in my eyes. What a joke. Better on-field product = better conference, at least in the long run, imo.
The Big 10 Network is the 2nd and 3rd tier rights holder for the Big 10, which basically means they have all Big 10 games (or inter-conference games hosted by a Big 10 school) that ESPN/ABC doesn't select for national coverage.  If it's on the BTN, ESPN/ABC won't have it at all.   And it's a single network but they do have multiple feeds available for games, so they can do more than one at the same time.  So it's mostly games that were only airing regionally before, and games that no one but the fans of the teams involved in care about - but THEY care alot, and that's how the model has worked for them.
11/19/2012 6:34 PM
you all do realize that FoxSports owns a majority of the Big10 network so the majority of the dollars from Big10 network goes to FoxSports.

the SEC has had every opportunity in the world to start their own network but is smart enough to understand a SEC Network doesn't translate into more viewership.  SEC-CBS-ESPN relationship is the gold standard in college sports right now.

Give this 5 years and guarantee you all will regret the Big10 adding Rutgers and Maryland
11/19/2012 6:42 PM
Yes, FoxSports makes a ton of money from the Big 10 Network, but so does the conference, both in terms of it's share of the Network, and in terms of the direct payouts to the conference.

Since I am neither a part of the Big 10 or a Big 10 fan, I can guarantee you I will regret nothing in 5 years.

of 5
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > College Football > Maryland & Rutgers to Big Ten?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.