Author Topic: Big Ten Expansion  (Read 9535 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tjb

  • Administrator
  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 8765
    • View Profile
    • PennStateHoops.com
tjb
South Portland, ME

Offline tjb

  • Administrator
  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 8765
    • View Profile
    • PennStateHoops.com
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #1 on: January 5, 2010, 09:51 PM »
From his follow-up post:

Quote (selected)
2.  Big Ten revenue is so incredibly and ridiculously FAR FAR FAR FAR ahead of the Big East and Big 12 that arguments such as ”Syracuse and Jim Boeheim love basketball in the Big East too much” or “Texas completely controls the Big 12″ are irrelevant – I made this point early in the original blog post, but it still comes up in message board discussions constantly.  So, let’s make it perfectly clear why any Big East school and probably any Big 12 school would leave for the Big Ten.  Here is the annual TV revenue for each conference as reported by ESPN’s Outside the Lines last month along with the average for each school:

  • Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school)
  • SEC: $205 million ($17.08 million per school)
  • Big 12: $78 million ($6.5 million per school)
  • ACC: $67 million ($5.58 million per school)
  • Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school)
  • Big East: $13 million for football/$20 million for basketball ($2.8 million per football school)


Take a look at those figures for a moment – every single Big Ten school makes almost twice as much TV revenue every year as the ENTIRE Big East football conference and even makes more than the entire Big East basketball contract (which that conference’s greatest strength).  There is no rational president of a Big East university that is fulfilling his or her fiduciary responsibility to such university that would turn down an invitation from the Big Ten for any reason whatsoever (whether it’s what the basketball coach says or anything else).  That’s not a personal knock on the Big East (as I’m also a law school alum of Big East member DePaul) but just a simple and glaring reality when you take two seconds to look at the numbers.

At the same time, Texas, which had a best case scenario of having the most nationally televised games and a BCS bowl appearance last year under the Big 12’s unequal revenue distribution formula, still made only $12 million in TV revenue compared to the $22 million that schools like Indiana and (gulp) Illinois received just for showing up.  Every reasonable person knows that even the best programs go through hard times, so it’s not as if though you can count on the best case scenario every single year.  Case in point is the Longhorns’ own rival of Oklahoma, who will receive significantly less money this year for a middling football season after being in the national championship game last year.  Michigan was playing Ohio State for a national championship game berth in 2006, yet look at where the Wolverines are now.  The recent competitive issues at Notre Dame are well-documented.  That means that even a powerhouse school like Texas has to examine where it will be in the event of the worst case scenario when it’s in a conference with unequal revenue distribution, which is something that gives university presidents and athletic directors that have to worry about budgets and state legislatures cutting funding a whole lot of heartburn.  This significant worry would immediately go away in the Big Ten – every school gets that $22 million per season whether they win multiple national championships or lose every single game.
tjb
South Portland, ME

psu2006

  • Guest
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #2 on: January 5, 2010, 10:02 PM »
Everyone would be happy with Texas joining the Big Ten - except alumni and boosters at Texas.  I think they would go ballistic at the very mention of joining the Big Ten.  The A&M and Oklahoma rivalries would likely die.  Syracuse seems a little more feasible.  Of course, I could be wrong, maybe they could pull this off

Offline tjb

  • Administrator
  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 8765
    • View Profile
    • PennStateHoops.com
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #3 on: January 5, 2010, 10:21 PM »
The ND alumni torched their entry into the Big 10 in the late 90s. And now they make $9M per year from TV instead of $22M. And it looks like Texas reached out to the Big Ten (which was in moratorium because of the crybaby backlash of the phys ed grads who ran the B10 athletic departments and football programs) and the Pac 10 back in the big shakeup.

Texas makes $12M from TV, and only because they are good enough to be televised a lot (the league has unequal distribution). As the blogger points out, ask Michigan how fast that can change.

Presumably, Texas brings $22 million in cable money and a football playoff game to the table to keep the revenue even. I don't see how adding any other school (except ND) or combination (like Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse) does anything other than dilute per school revenue.

If you believe that Syracuse and Rutgers together deliver the BTN to basic cable in NY and NJ, that might be close.

I am buying this argument (which is well worth reading in its entirety). There are 10 million reasons why Texas would strongly consider this. 
tjb
South Portland, ME

Offline mjg

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 6870
    • AOL Instant Messenger - mgreen17025
    • View Profile
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #4 on: January 5, 2010, 10:30 PM »
The ND alumni torched their entry into the Big 10 in the late 90s. And now they make $9M per year from TV instead of $22M. And it looks like Texas reached out to the Big Ten (which was in moratorium because of the crybaby backlash of the phys ed grads who ran the B10 athletic departments and football programs) and the Pac 10 back in the big shakeup.

Texas makes $12M from TV, and only because they are good enough to be televised a lot (the league has unequal distribution). As the blogger points out, ask Michigan how fast that can change.

Presumably, Texas brings $22 million in cable money and a football playoff game to the table to keep the revenue even. I don't see how adding any other school (except ND) or combination (like Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse) does anything other than dilute per school revenue.

If you believe that Syracuse and Rutgers together deliver the BTN to basic cable in NY and NJ, that might be close.

I am buying this argument (which is well worth reading in its entirety). There are 10 million reasons why Texas would strongly consider this. 

I'm guessing that if Texas wants in, they are all but a lock.  Unfortunately, that does nothing to help PSU develop a true rivalry in the conference.  I suppose if PSU and Texas were in the same division -- opposite OSU and Meatchicken, that could become our "big game".  But, I still think it's a shame that Pitt is almost certainly on the outside wishing that eastern all sports thing had happened way back when.  I can only see Pitt in the Big Ten if the conference decided to go crazy and add about 3 or even 5 more teams.  But that's just not going to happen.

Offline UncleLar

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 9534
    • View Profile
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #5 on: January 5, 2010, 10:32 PM »
The ND alumni torched their entry into the Big 10 in the late 90s. And now they make $9M per year from TV instead of $22M. And it looks like Texas reached out to the Big Ten (which was in moratorium because of the crybaby backlash of the phys ed grads who ran the B10 athletic departments and football programs) and the Pac 10 back in the big shakeup.

Texas makes $12M from TV, and only because they are good enough to be televised a lot (the league has unequal distribution). As the blogger points out, ask Michigan how fast that can change.

Presumably, Texas brings $22 million in cable money and a football playoff game to the table to keep the revenue even. I don't see how adding any other school (except ND) or combination (like Rutgers, Pitt and Syracuse) does anything other than dilute per school revenue.

If you believe that Syracuse and Rutgers together deliver the BTN to basic cable in NY and NJ, that might be close.

I am buying this argument (which is well worth reading in its entirety). There are 10 million reasons why Texas would strongly consider this. 

How quickly could we replace Michigan State with Texas as our designated rival?  Instantly, I would hope.

I don't know of a single fan who would regret that change (although I could also easily see the concept being done away with in a 12 team conference).
I henceforth promise to never rarely respond to kid again.

psu2006

  • Guest
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #6 on: January 5, 2010, 10:39 PM »
The ND alumni torched their entry into the Big 10 in the late 90s. And now they make $9M per year from TV instead of $22M.
 

And they still probably wouldn't join today if they were invited.  Texas received $30M in donations last year, it wouldn't be a bit surprising if a group of wealthy donors could block a move by themselves.  The Big 12 might also be inclined to make the distribution even more uneven to keep Texas.  That conference wouldn't survive if they left.  

The AD and president at Texas would be insane to consider it if they value their jobs.  They are already running arguably the most successful athletic department in the country, and would risk torching rivalries and ticking off alumni by moving to a conference with no other Texas universities? 
« Last Edit: January 5, 2010, 10:45 PM by psu2006 »

Offline tjb

  • Administrator
  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 8765
    • View Profile
    • PennStateHoops.com
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #7 on: January 5, 2010, 10:45 PM »
Penn State fans' lingering disappointment about the move to the Big 10 is a mystery to me. And Graham Spanier and the trustees should be building statues of Bryce Jordan and Stanley Ikenberry to erect next to Joe Paterno out there on Porter Road.

Big Ten revenue share: $22 million
Big East revenue share: $2.8 million

I mean, can you imagine?

OK, we don't play Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers. But we do play Ohio State, Michigan, and Illinois, and one or two others (Iowa) who are going to be extra good every year.

If you are willing to tack a satellite dish on your house, you can see every football and basketball game that we play.

If Texas comes in, can you imagine how much fun this league will be? When my generation dies out, there will not be a single Pitt post on the McAndrew board.
tjb
South Portland, ME

psu2006

  • Guest
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #8 on: January 5, 2010, 10:47 PM »
Penn State fans' lingering disappointment about the move to the Big 10 is a mystery to me. And Graham Spanier and the trustees should be building statues of Bryce Jordan and Stanley Ikenberry to erect next to Joe Paterno out there on Porter Road.

Big Ten revenue share: $22 million
Big East revenue share: $2.8 million

I mean, can you imagine?

OK, we don't play Syracuse, Pitt and Rutgers. But we do play Ohio State, Michigan, and Illinois, and one or two others (Iowa) who are going to be extra good every year.

If you are willing to tack a satellite dish on your house, you can see every football and basketball game that we play.

If Texas comes in, can you imagine how much fun this league will be? When my generation dies out, there will not be a single Pitt post on the McAndrew board.

Yes that's all true - but Penn State's situation in 1989-1990 is nothing like the Texas' situation 20 years later.  Penn State is just not the same as Texas in general.  There are several factors that make the Big 12 the only choice for Texas, the biggest of which is Texas itself.  This is a great idea on paper, but politically infeasible.... unless maybe the Big Ten brings someone else in with them (A&M)
« Last Edit: January 5, 2010, 10:54 PM by psu2006 »

Offline tjb

  • Administrator
  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 8765
    • View Profile
    • PennStateHoops.com
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #9 on: January 5, 2010, 10:54 PM »

Yes that's all true - but Penn State's situation in 1989-1990 is nothing like the Texas' situation 20 years later.  This is a great idea on paper, but politically infeasible

How are the situations different?

If anything, the instability of the Big 12 makes their situations a lot alike.

Texas can continue to play Oklahoma yearly. Texas A&M would be tougher, that would be two killer non-conference games. 
tjb
South Portland, ME

Offline NittanyILL

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 3347
    • View Profile
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #10 on: January 5, 2010, 11:07 PM »
Thanks for posting Timmy...I spent the last hour reading the entire article while trying to keep up with the Georgia Tech/Iowa/Illinois football/basketball doubleheader.  (My wife got her masters at GaTech, so Iowa is an especially bad word around my house tonight.  In fact, my six year old daughter questioned the refs on a holding call on GT DL Derrick Morgan early in the game, saying it was just a "stiff arm, not a hold."  Hate to say it, but my six year old was right.)

I'd love to see Texas join the Big Ten.  However, I can't fathom that the Texas students/alumni/fans who like to attend conference road games would be all that happy.  As much as it would be a fiscal boon for Texas, it would rock their fan base considerably.  

Offline tjb

  • Administrator
  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 8765
    • View Profile
    • PennStateHoops.com
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #11 on: January 5, 2010, 11:15 PM »
I'd love to see Texas join the Big Ten.  However, I can't fathom that the Texas students/alumni/fans who like to attend conference road games would be all that happy.  As much as it would be a fiscal boon for Texas, it would rock their fan base considerably.   

He addresses this.... Traveling affects a few thousand fans. And the big donors among them will not be affected.
tjb
South Portland, ME

psu2006

  • Guest
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #12 on: January 5, 2010, 11:20 PM »

Yes that's all true - but Penn State's situation in 1989-1990 is nothing like the Texas' situation 20 years later.  This is a great idea on paper, but politically infeasible

How are the situations different?

If anything, the instability of the Big 12 makes their situations a lot alike.

Texas can continue to play Oklahoma yearly. Texas A&M would be tougher, that would be two killer non-conference games.  

Just because Penn State was an independent, and the administration and trustees probably universally wanted in - the question at the time was whether we could convince 6 other big ten schools to support it.  All 11 would support Texas, Texas might not support Texas.  Again, I think this is an outstanding idea, but would end with a 'thanks but no thanks' from Texas (due to alumni pressure).  Their board would just vote no at the end of the whole process to save face politically.  It would be a hugely unpopular proposition to a lot of people at Texas with the exception of bean counters in the athletic department.  I absolutely guarantee the state legislature would get involved to stop it.  If I were the Big Ten, I'd let the new Pac-10 commish make the first move and follow suit.  If they add 1 school, add 1 school.  If they try to form some kind of western football mega-conference (I think they will), invite half the big east.  Unfortunately I think Delany will botch this search.  It will end with either 1) nobody, 2) missouri, or 3) rutgers.  all of which would probably be flops
« Last Edit: January 5, 2010, 11:30 PM by psu2006 »

Offline Great Santini

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 638
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #13 on: January 5, 2010, 11:55 PM »
There are only two teams that make any sense to add to the Big Ten - ND and Missouri. ND has spurned the Big Ten twice, so I think the conference would be crazy to ask them again. Besides, ND is used to calling their own shots and would expect to dominate the conference, which would raise the hackles of the current dominators of the conference - OSU and UM. I see nothing but problems if ND joined. Missouri is interesting - good fit and seems interested. Everyone else (Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, Syracuse, Cincy, Louisville) are teams that the Big Ten would "settle for" in order to get the 12th team needed for a playoff. Adding any of these teams would dilute the conference - which is sort of like issuing new stock when the price is at an all time low.

Texas will never join - as soon as a move to the Big Ten was even whispered, there'd be a bill in the Texas State Legislature to ban the move. If Missouri doesn't join, the conference should go to plan B.

Has anyone thought about petitioning the Big Ten to allow the conference to split into a six team division and a five team division with the understanding that we'll add a 12th eventually. The NFL has four team divisions; MLB has had four and five team divisions for years; the NBA had four team divisions back in the day; the NFL has nothing but five team divisions. What the heck is so sacrosanct about six team divisions that the NCAA couldn't give the Big Ten a waiver?

If we can't get a waiver, then we should do some other things that keep the Big Ten in the picture in late November and early December - like play league games in indoor fields in Big Ten country, play some games in December in warmer climes (like why don't we schedule home and home games against Miami in December?), play a Big Ten opponent in FL in late November or early December (like in Jacksonville

Of course, all this flies in the face of the Big Ten's guiding principle - "thou shalt hold the OSU-UM game sacred and declare it to be the biggest game of the year", so it will have to happen only after all else fails and the league sees declining revenues. This is the same league that told PSU it would take five years to integrate us in the football schedules, resisted instant replay, and insists on finishing the season before Thanksgiving.

psu2006

  • Guest
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #14 on: January 6, 2010, 12:02 AM »
Has anyone thought about petitioning the Big Ten to allow the conference to split into a six team division and a five team division with the understanding that we'll add a 12th eventually. The NFL has four team divisions; MLB has had four and five team divisions for years; the NBA had four team divisions back in the day; the NFL has nothing but five team divisions. What the heck is so sacrosanct about six team divisions that the NCAA couldn't give the Big Ten a waiver?

asking permission to break the 12 schools for a title game rule is the most obvious move.  it would make everybody happy, including the Pac-10 and Big East. It is so obvious that nobody will ever consider it

This whole process is most likely to end in another invitation to ND, and another no (although the chances might be a little better this time)


psu2006

  • Guest
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #15 on: January 6, 2010, 12:12 AM »
There are only two teams that make any sense to add to the Big Ten - ND and Missouri. ND has spurned the Big Ten twice, so I think the conference would be crazy to ask them again. Besides, ND is used to calling their own shots and would expect to dominate the conference, which would raise the hackles of the current dominators of the conference - OSU and UM. I see nothing but problems if ND joined. Missouri is interesting - good fit and seems interested. Everyone else (Pitt, WVU, Rutgers, Syracuse, Cincy, Louisville) are teams that the Big Ten would "settle for" in order to get the 12th team needed for a playoff. Adding any of these teams would dilute the conference - which is sort of like issuing new stock when the price is at an all time low.


Some of these schools just get mentioned by fans and sportswriters and would never possibly get an invitation.  WVU, Louisville, and Cincinnati are in that group (in decreasing order of actually being considered).

Offline tjb

  • Administrator
  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 8765
    • View Profile
    • PennStateHoops.com
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #16 on: January 6, 2010, 06:59 AM »
There really is no point in inviting anyone that makes the conference weaker. Most of these scenarios, in my opinion, provide a football championship at the expense of decreasing overall revenue. I'm not sure what that gets us.

I agree that it is not great to "go dark" at the end of the year like the football teams do, but I don't think that is hurting national championship chances. Losing big games has been the problem.

If Syracuse or Rutgers delivered cable households to the BTN (a big if -- I don't think anyone in those areas gives a fig about college football or college basketball), maybe. I don't know what the BTN penetration is in St. Louis, but I get the impression that Illinois already helps a lot there.

I think it's Texas, Notre Dame, or no one. I agree that Notre Dame will not do it: Its fans are on a march of denial into permanent mediocrity. I agree that the notion that a decision by Texas will be driven by its sprawling board (and anyone who read some of the emails between the Texas Tech board member/fat cat booster and the university president knows that that is an ugly, ugly process) should make a casual bettor move his chips to the No side of the table.

But I haven't lived in Texas nor spent much time studying it as a sociology/anthropology/political science project, and I have no idea that joining a conference

[1] That dominates ABC/ESPN and has its own lucrative nationwide cable network resulting in $10 million more annually (worst case!) to the bottom line
[2] That provides the opportunity to screw and leave behind the little sisters in the league that sop up revenue (or looked at another way, provides an opportunity to differentiate itself)
[3] That provides a group of peer institutions that is much more distinguished academically
[4] That provides three marquee matchups -- Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State -- to go along with Oklahoma and/or Texas A&M every year

Wouldn't seem like a pretty good package.

The only regret would be missing Lloyd Carr or Bo Schembechler grousing about having to play Texas. Somehow Rich Rod's whinyness just doesn't rate.
« Last Edit: January 6, 2010, 07:01 AM by tjb »
tjb
South Portland, ME

Offline tjb

  • Administrator
  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 8765
    • View Profile
    • PennStateHoops.com
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #17 on: January 6, 2010, 09:56 AM »
Unfortunately I think Delany will botch this search.  It will end with either 1) nobody, 2) missouri, or 3) rutgers.  all of which would probably be flops

Yes, the evidence clearly supports the idea that Delaney is incompetent:

  • Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school)
  • SEC: $205 million ($17.08 million per school)
  • Big 12: $78 million ($6.5 million per school)
  • ACC: $67 million ($5.58 million per school)
  • Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school)
  • Big East: $13 million for football/$20 million for basketball ($2.8 million per football school)


I may have to pull the data out of the old board to find all the insightful criticism of his idiotic move to create a Big Ten Network.

It is a mystery to me how this guy survives.
tjb
South Portland, ME

Offline tundra

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 5839
    • View Profile
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #18 on: January 6, 2010, 10:05 AM »
Unfortunately I think Delany will botch this search.  It will end with either 1) nobody, 2) missouri, or 3) rutgers.  all of which would probably be flops

Yes, the evidence clearly supports the idea that Delaney is incompetent:

  • Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school)
  • SEC: $205 million ($17.08 million per school)
  • Big 12: $78 million ($6.5 million per school)
  • ACC: $67 million ($5.58 million per school)
  • Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school)
  • Big East: $13 million for football/$20 million for basketball ($2.8 million per football school)


I may have to pull the data out of the old board to find all the insightful criticism of his idiotic move to create a Big Ten Network.

It is a mystery to me how this guy survives.


What are the numbers above? TV money?
With all this money you would think PSU could due more to promote basketball!

Offline JakkL

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 914
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #19 on: January 6, 2010, 10:11 AM »
I still think that if the B10 packages it correctly they can get ND on board.  They are already in the Big East for all other sports, so it's football that is their only issue.  If they are put into a division with the schools they play every year already (UM, Purdue, MSU) AND are not forced to play any crossover games against the other B10 division it means that they will have 7 non-con games each year to play with.  As for TV money, let them keep their non-con home game NBC tv contract, but reduce their B10 football TV $ proportionally.  I think it's a win-win.

I don't see Syracuse or Rutgers as B10 schools.  Neither school really attracts the NYC tv market, which is very professional sports oriented.  

Missouri is the logical 2nd choice due to location and KC and StL tv markets.  They already have their major rivalry with Illinois.  The Missouri governor is a fan of them joining.

My 3rd choice would be to go after Maryland.  They do have the Baltimore and DC market.  I know they are happy in the ACC, but $17 million is a LOT of green to tempt them to join us.

Offline laoDan

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #20 on: January 6, 2010, 01:05 PM »
I still think that if the B10 packages it correctly they can get ND on board.  They are already in the Big East for all other sports, so it's football that is their only issue.  If they are put into a division with the schools they play every year already (UM, Purdue, MSU) AND are not forced to play any crossover games against the other B10 division it means that they will have 7 non-con games each year to play with.  As for TV money, let them keep their non-con home game NBC tv contract, but reduce their B10 football TV $ proportionally.  I think it's a win-win.

That will never happen.  You can't make an scheduling exception like that.  How would you determine standings? A reasonable exception would be to allow their quirky USC schedule (mid Oct in South Bend, after Thanksgiving at USC).

If they join the Big Ten they won't get the NBC contract.  With Comcast owning NBC now I would not be shocked to see Notre Dame dropped when their contract is up anyway.  It's possible Comcast will say Versus or bust, in and attempt to get Notre Dame's popularity to raise Versus' profile.  Comcast wants to turn Versus into a legitimate sports network to rival (or at least belong in the conversation with) ESPN.

The non conf games for ND in the Big Ten could be USC, BC, Navy and Stanford. 

Offline Finding Forrester

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 875
    • View Profile
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #21 on: January 6, 2010, 01:34 PM »
The non conf games for ND in the Big Ten could be USC, BC, Navy and Stanford. 

That would be a heck of a non-conf schedule on top of the Big10 schedule....I think most PSU fans would scream foul if we played that difficult of a non-conf schedule. (3 BCS teams and a bowl quality independent).

Offline UncleLar

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 9534
    • View Profile
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #22 on: January 6, 2010, 02:45 PM »
Unfortunately I think Delany will botch this search.  It will end with either 1) nobody, 2) missouri, or 3) rutgers.  all of which would probably be flops

Yes, the evidence clearly supports the idea that Delaney is incompetent:

  • Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school)
  • SEC: $205 million ($17.08 million per school)
  • Big 12: $78 million ($6.5 million per school)
  • ACC: $67 million ($5.58 million per school)
  • Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school)
  • Big East: $13 million for football/$20 million for basketball ($2.8 million per football school)
I may have to pull the data out of the old board to find all the insightful criticism of his idiotic move to create a Big Ten Network.

It is a mystery to me how this guy survives.


I remember it well.  You won't find a bigger defender of the move than I was and I remember taking a fair amount of grief about it.  Outside the board, I had several discussions with Mark Brennan about whether it made sense or not.  Eventually, he suggested that "time would tell" and we'd have to revisit the argument after a few years.  The next time I see him I'll have to ask him what he thinks of the BTN now.   ;D

For the record, I don't really claim to be any insightful genius but there were two things that really convinced be that it made a lot of sense. 

One, my brother works for the YES network and he had recently told me about a little quiet celebration they had at work because at that point their network had just been valued at bigger bucks than their parent company, the Yankees themselves.   I knew that the Yankees were worth well north of $1B and that was an eye opener for me as to the amount of money involved.

Two, former Penn State wrestler, Chris Bevilacqua, who made a fortune as one of the founders of CSTV, was incredibly enthusiastic about the move. Chris is a mover shaker in the TV sports business and I felt if anyone knew what they were talking about on the subject, it was Chris. He was dead on accurate with his assessment of the network's potential. 
I henceforth promise to never rarely respond to kid again.

Offline Bulldog

  • Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
    • View Profile
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #23 on: January 6, 2010, 03:30 PM »
Unfortunately I think Delany will botch this search.  It will end with either 1) nobody, 2) missouri, or 3) rutgers.  all of which would probably be flops

Yes, the evidence clearly supports the idea that Delaney is incompetent:

  • Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school)
  • SEC: $205 million ($17.08 million per school)
  • Big 12: $78 million ($6.5 million per school)
  • ACC: $67 million ($5.58 million per school)
  • Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school)
  • Big East: $13 million for football/$20 million for basketball ($2.8 million per football school)


I may have to pull the data out of the old board to find all the insightful criticism of his idiotic move to create a Big Ten Network.

It is a mystery to me how this guy survives.


What are the numbers above? TV money?
With all this money you would think PSU could due more to promote basketball!

With all this money, you would think that the AD would not have had to announce the STEP program which is alienating a lot of long time, faithful and generous football season ticket holders.

Offline tundra

  • Nittany Lion
  • *****
  • Posts: 5839
    • View Profile
Re: Big Ten Expansion
« Reply #24 on: January 6, 2010, 03:49 PM »
Unfortunately I think Delany will botch this search.  It will end with either 1) nobody, 2) missouri, or 3) rutgers.  all of which would probably be flops

Yes, the evidence clearly supports the idea that Delaney is incompetent:

  • Big Ten: $242 million ($22 million per school)
  • SEC: $205 million ($17.08 million per school)
  • Big 12: $78 million ($6.5 million per school)
  • ACC: $67 million ($5.58 million per school)
  • Pac-10: $58 million ($5.8 million per school)
  • Big East: $13 million for football/$20 million for basketball ($2.8 million per football school)


I may have to pull the data out of the old board to find all the insightful criticism of his idiotic move to create a Big Ten Network.

It is a mystery to me how this guy survives.


What are the numbers above? TV money?
With all this money you would think PSU could due more to promote basketball!

With all this money, you would think that the AD would not have had to announce the STEP program which is alienating a lot of long time, faithful and generous football season ticket holders.

Greed is endless!  Oh yes, and the apologists will say  "Well, some other school does it, don't you what to keep up with the Joneses??"
Answer....NO I don't want to keep up with the Joneses. We sure as heck don't keep up with the Joneses in basketball!!