How does a conference like the Big 10

[ozhawk]

who hasn't been the best conference in football or basketball in YEARS have so much power? I know it's all about the money....so my question is how is that conference smarter than all the other conferences in getting money?

Becasue its not about success...its about power and power resides in the sheer number of fans the BTN has

I know they have a lot of viewers in there area to help get them on TV more. It just seems odd that a conference that probably ranks 4th in terms of success the last 10 years in football/basketball combined has so much power to completely change the way conferences are aligned.

Because its NOT ABOUT on the field SUCCESS. you answered the question. Power comes in number of views because the number of viewers is where the money comes from.

Why don't other conferences see the success that the Big 10 is having financially and try to mirror what they do, rather than having teams leave to join them?

They do see the success. How in the world could the Big 12 "mirror" what the Big 10 is doing? DO they quit using birth conrol and start having 14 kids per family?

Just think how successful they could be.

Sucessful? Having 14 kids could be a huge financial burden..Then you would have to keep some of those kids away from the TV...otherwise..GASP they could become Big 10 fans!
I

just don't get it, but I will be honest, I haven't paid any attention to the talks so far so my post could be idiotic. :wink:

Your post isn't idiotic. It is good discussion. I think you know the answer to the question. But your opinion on league quality vs. the big 10 keeps getting in the way. Put it this way. If a team loses every game but still has 20 million fans watching them every week. They are going to be financially more successful than a team that wins every game but only has 10,000 fans.

 

[SouthernClone06]

If a team loses every game but still has 20 million fans watching them every week. They are going to be financially more successful than a team that wins every game but only has 10,000 fans.

Hey! You leave the Cowboys out of this!

 

[Clones85']

They do see the success. How in the world could the Big 12 "mirror" what the Big 10 is doing? DO they quit using birth conrol and start having 14 kids per family?

I'm not saying it would make them as financially strong but I think it would make the conference more balanced and HELP the conference financially. Sure you can't match the Big 10 because we are comparing markets of 45 million to 67 million. But 45 million is still plenty of people and they could still throw some sort of package together that would financially benefit everyone invovled

More than 25% of the country's population, as the conferences are aligned now, live in the Big Ten footprint.

You must be wearing size 18 shoes because it's only around 18% by my calculations (which is still a lot :yes

 

[vortex]

Since 2001 they have had 4 teams in the title game, one was MSU. B12 has had 2, both KU. I am not arguing it is the best conference, just better than some seem to think it is.

The Big Ten is much better than some may want to admit. Population = money and that is something that will never change.

 

[hawkfan]

I've stated this multiple times, but I'll state it again because it is relevant to this thread directly. The reason the Big Ten Network works, and a Big 12 Network wouldn't (and why the SEC doesn't even have their own network yet - it is simply an add on ESPN package) is because of the dedication of Big Ten fan bases. Without a doubt, if you asked a bowl selection committee member which conference has the largest numbers of dedicated fans in the country, it would be the Big Ten. If you made a list of the top 10 fan bases that travel the best, five of the top ten would definitely be from the Big Ten (Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa).

The Big Ten not only has a large fan base, it has a dedicated one. Ratings are much higher for Big Ten games than for games in the Big 12/SEC. Why? Because Big Ten country is very passionate about their college sports. The idea of a "rabid fan base" is EXTREMELY important when introducing the creation of a conference network....to see an example, we have to look back only a few years.

Remember when Mediacom was fighting tooth and nail to keep the Big Ten Network off of its basic package? What ended up happening there? The BTN got on the basic package because of rabid Iowa fans demanding it be so in large numbers. With all due respect, ISU wasn't getting a network on basic cable in Iowa....there simply wasn't a large enough percentage of subscribers to threaten Mediacom if they chose not to put it on basic cable. The Big Ten's fan bases enabled its network to be on basic cable for most every subscriber in the conference's footprint....that wouldn't be the case in the Big 12. Missouri, for instance, is a state where I highly doubt the Tiger faithful would have enough clout to get a Big 12 Network on basic cable. Same thing for Colorado (which holds the valuable Denver market). Both these states are more concerned with professional sports than collegiate sports.

Further complicating the problem is the fact that a VERY large percentage of the Big 12's population is located within the state of Texas.....also, four of the member schools are from that state as well. Therefore, local advertising becomes very inefficient. If you are from Nebraska and wanting to advertise some Nebraska goods, what good will it do you if 60%-70% of your viewers are from the state of Texas?

The reason there isn't a Big 12 Network is simply because it cannot be done effectively. The make up of the Big 12's fan bases create major road blocks for the creation of a network, and if that weren't enough, the demographic geography becomes the final nail in the coffin. Also, I should point out, the above also ignores the fact (which has been pointed out frequently) that the sheer number of viewers in Big 12 country is very low in comparison to the Big 10 country....and the Big 10 viewers are spread out over each state, while nearly half of the Big 12's potential viewers come from one state (Texas).

 

[ozhawk]

The more I think about it the more I realize that a big 12 network wouldn't be able to float. If Texas were forced to share the revenue that THEY EARNED the conference then I see them say F you and leaving. Its not much different than welfare for the other schools. Texas makes the Money and gives it away? You have Got to be kidding.!

 

[Gonzo]

We were #1 in RPI last year and I think the Big 10 was 6th.......

And let's just agree to disagree on football

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Big 12 was better in football than the Big 10 last year?

Big 10, and it wasn't even close.

 

[3GenClone]

The reason the Big Ten Network works, and a Big 12 Network wouldn't (and why the SEC doesn't even have their own network yet - it is simply an add on ESPN package) is because of the dedication of Big Ten fan bases. Without a doubt, if you asked a bowl selection committee member which conference has the largest numbers of dedicated fans in the country, it would be the Big Ten. If you made a list of the top 10 fan bases that travel the best, five of the top ten would definitely be from the Big Ten (Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa).

I will agree that prestige is what makes the Big 10 great. But then what would the Big 10 gain by diluting that with schools such as Mizzou, Rutgers, Pitt, etc. that equal to the fanbases of Indiana, Northwestern and Illinois. The discussion of the Big 10 expanding sounds great in theory, and a school like Notre Dame would make a great addition. But, and this is my opinion, any addition of Big East schools and/or Big 12 schools would actually weaken the prestige the Big 10 has. How many Big 10 schools would make it to the BCS? If the current BCS formula stays as it is then it would still be 2. How many Big 10 bowl tie-ins would there be? You run in to the same problem that Mizzou had when it came to bowl selection, teams will get passed over. I think this will look great on paper for the Big 10, but how long will it take until the smaller fan bases want more? Or when will the Michigan's, Penn State's (and possibly Nebraska's) want more? Texas may be angered with their share of $$ but how long will it take until Ohio State wants more $ than their "less-deserving" Big 10 counter-parts?

 

[alarson]

To have a network, you need a population to sell it to and to sell to advertisers. The Big 12 would get far less advertising revenue because of their smaller tv footprint. I mean if having a TV network = $$$ then why don't all conferences do it? Because you have to be able to sell tv sets.

Have you watched the big 10 network? During all the football games i watched, which are probably the most highly rated event on the b10n, most of the ads were self promotion for the big 10. They arent making money from advertisers. Theyre making money from retransmission agreements. The big 12 could do the same thing in the states within its footprint. Would the revenue be the same? No, as the big 10 has a higher population within its footprint. But itd likely be better than it is now.

 

[3GenClone]

Have you watched the big 10 network? During all the football games i watched, which are probably the most highly rated event on the b10n, most of the ads were self promotion for the big 10. They arent making money from advertisers. Theyre making money from retransmission agreements. The big 12 could do the same thing in the states within its footprint. Would the revenue be the same? No, as the big 10 has a higher population within its footprint. But itd likely be better than it is now.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. TV, radio, newspapers, CycloneFanatic are all run off of advertiser dollars. No matter the amount of self-promotion the Big 10 does they still make a huge profit off of their advertisers.

 

[hawkfan]

I will agree that prestige is what makes the Big 10 great. But then what would the Big 10 gain by diluting that with schools such as Mizzou, Rutgers, Pitt, etc. that equal to the fanbases of Indiana, Northwestern and Illinois. The discussion of the Big 10 expanding sounds great in theory, and a school like Notre Dame would make a great addition. But, and this is my opinion, any addition of Big East schools and/or Big 12 schools would actually weaken the prestige the Big 10 has. How many Big 10 schools would make it to the BCS? If the current BCS formula stays as it is then it would still be 2. How many Big 10 bowl tie-ins would there be? You run in to the same problem that Mizzou had when it came to bowl selection, teams will get passed over. I think this will look great on paper for the Big 10, but how long will it take until the smaller fan bases want more? Or when will the Michigan's, Penn State's (and possibly Nebraska's) want more? Texas may be angered with their share of $$ but how long will it take until Ohio State wants more $ than their "less-deserving" Big 10 counter-parts?

1. I've stated this multiple times, and I'll stick to it until I'm proven wrong: Mizzou will not be coming to the Big Ten. For the following reasons: A.) They have an apathetic fan base B.) They aren't a prestigious school academically and C.) The BTN is already on basic cable in most of St. Louis already. Pitt does have an apathetic fan base, but they are a very good medical school and have a history of winning football games (they do have a national title on their resume at least) and are a great basketball school. Rutgers was the first school in history to ever play college football....the fan support they have attracted within the last decade is phenomenal considering that less than 20 years ago they were one of the worst football schools in the country (they are also a good school - much better than Mizzou anyway). Bank on this: Nebraska will be in the Big 10 by 2013....it may be a rough transition for them, but the Big 10 will go after Nebraska....Nebraska has the Big 10 fan base, the Big 10 AAU membership (albeit a lower US News and World Report ranking, Nebbie has poured millions into academic upgrades within the last decade), and maybe most importantly, a national viewing audience.

2. The bowl lineup would work itself out....no worries there. Supply and Demand...the Demand for Big Ten bowl games would result in a supply of them.

3. The Big 10 revenue sharing agreement will never change...it would take a vote of all 11 (or 16) presidents to reverse the revenue sharing agreement....I doubt you'll see Indiana, Northwestern, or Minnesota voting to end revenue sharing. The have's and have nots in the Big Ten will remain in the same balance they are now...you need to look no farther than the Big 12 to see what happens when conference members get greedy.

 

[alarson]

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. TV, radio, newspapers, CycloneFanatic are all run off of advertiser dollars. No matter the amount of self-promotion the Big 10 does they still make a huge profit off of their advertisers.

I'm sure theyre making some money. But the vast majority of their money is coming from the retrans agreements. And fact is, as far as advertisers go, you could make the case to advertisers that while the big 12 has 2/3 the population of the big 10, the fans of the big 12 are much more likely to be watching football than those in the big 10.

On another line, I added up the population of the states for each conference (as of 2009 census estimates):

Big 10:67,379,505
Big 12:46784902

Though as far as future growth goes, certainly interesting numbers:
Since 2000 (up through 2009), the conferences have grown by:
Big 10:3.21%
Big 12:12.67%

 

[Clones85']

Are you seriously trying to argue that the Big 12 was better in football than the Big 10 last year?

Big 10, and it wasn't even close.

Really?

Big 12 was 3-1 against the Big 10 last year. Winning record baby.

When I say the Big 10 sucks and show their bowl record, Iowa fans say that bowl records are meaningless. So I am now showing head to head records. I wonder what the argument will be on this

 

[3GenClone]

1. I've stated this multiple times, and I'll stick to it until I'm proven wrong: Mizzou will not be coming to the Big Ten. For the following reasons: A.) They have an apathetic fan base B.) They aren't a prestigious school academically and C.) The BTN is already on basic cable in most of St. Louis already. Pitt does have an apathetic fan base, but they are a very good medical school and have a history of winning football games (they do have a national title on their resume at least) and are a great basketball school. Rutgers was the first school in history to ever play college football....the fan support they have attracted within the last decade is phenomenal considering that less than 20 years ago they were one of the worst football schools in the country (they are also a good school - much better than Mizzou anyway). Bank on this: Nebraska will be in the Big 10 by 2013....it may be a rough transition for them, but the Big 10 will go after Nebraska....Nebraska has the Big 10 fan base, the Big 10 AAU membership (albeit a lower US News and World Report ranking, Nebbie has poured millions into academic upgrades within the last decade), and maybe most importantly, a national viewing audience.

2. The bowl lineup would work itself out....no worries there. Supply and Demand...the Demand for Big Ten bowl games would result in a supply of them.

3. The Big 10 revenue sharing agreement will never change...it would take a vote of all 11 (or 16) presidents to reverse the revenue sharing agreement....I doubt you'll see Indiana, Northwestern, or Minnesota voting to end revenue sharing. The have's and have nots in the Big Ten will remain in the same balance they are now...you need to look no farther than the Big 12 to see what happens when conference members get greedy.

Point 1 I won't disagree with you on, as nobody really knows who will join the Big 10.

Point 2 I think is the biggest deal. You bring up supply and demand. Big 10 will bring demand, but the economy will limit supply in Bowl Sponsors. Look at FedEx and the Orange Bowl, the longest bowl partnership agreement until it ended this past week.

Point 3 I'll agree, it won't change. But you can only take so much away from the head of the class and give it to the have-nots until something has to change... look no further than Virginia Tech, Miami, and Boston College

 

[snowcraig2.0]

Big 10, and it wasn't even close.

Your second best team was Iowa. OU would house Iowa.

 

[everyyard]

Your second best team was Iowa. OU would house Iowa.

sorry, dude. probably sacrilege but I would take Iowa in that one...easy.

 

[Gonzo]

Really?

Big 12 was 3-1 against the Big 10 last year. Winning record baby.

When I say the Big 10 sucks and show their bowl record, Iowa fans say that bowl records are meaningless. So I am now showing head to head records. I wonder what the argument will be on this

So because ISU beat Minnesota and Mizzou beat Illinois, the Big 12 is obviously the better conference. Nice logic.

At the end of the year, one conference finished with the #5, #7, #9, and #16 teams in the country. This same conference was 4-3 in bowls, with each of its four wins coming against teams ranked in the top 15.

The other conference finished with the #2, #14, and #21 teams in the country. This conference went 4-4 in bowls, with only one matchup against a team ranked in the top 15, which it lost.

Not even close. But congrats on that Texas Tech win against a 6-7 Michigan St.

 

[tiberius]

I think the bubble is about to burst on the big $$$ in college athletics from television, especially with the btn. Kinda like the housing market, every other channel had a house flipping show because it was like printing money. When things seem to be unstoppable it usually turns and can get ugly.

 

[Gonzo]

Really?

Big 12 was 3-1 against the Big 10 last year. Winning record baby.

When I say the Big 10 sucks and show their bowl record, Iowa fans say that bowl records are meaningless. So I am now showing head to head records. I wonder what the argument will be on this

So you're ready to admit that the Big East was better than the Big 12? Big East was 2-0 against the Big 12 last year.

 

[Clones85']

So you're ready to admit that the Big East was better than the Big 12? Big East was 2-0 against the Big 12 last year.

Which one is it. The Big 10 fans for the last 9 years said that bowl records don't matter and just because they hadn't had a winning bowl record in those 9 years doesn't mean that it is a poor conference. Now they have 1 winning bowl season in which they won some games and that is why they are the best conference that season? Even though their record overall in the given year was below .500 against BCS teams?