http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/...61f75.html

Big Ten Network enticing, but would it be enough for Texas to leave Big 12?

08:25 PM CST on Friday, February 12, 2010

By TEDDY GREENSTEIN / Chicago Tribune

CHICAGO - Yes, the Big Ten expansion patrol has made inquiries with Texas. It has explored partnering with several institutions, if not dozens, as it follows its expressed plan to conduct a "thorough evaluation of options" over the next 10 to 16 months.

As a source inside the conference told the Chicago Tribune earlier this week: "We're looking everywhere. If you're going to scrub this hard, why not look everywhere?"

The Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World reported Thursday the league of Woody and Bo has had "preliminary exchanges" with Texas.

From the Big Ten's perspective, this makes perfect sense.

Texas provides an almost ideal package of big-time football, top-flight basketball, strong academics (47th among national universities, according to U.S. News & World report, tied with Penn State), an outstanding brand, an impressive non-revenue sports program, a $16 billion endowment and, of most importance, a huge potential revenue source. The Big Ten Network would love to delve deep in the heart of Texas.

Only Notre Dame would present as enticing a package, and the only way the Irish will end up in the Big Ten is if university officials in South Bend make the first move. And that will happen only if Big East leaders get fed up with Notre Dame's sweetheart deal - football independence, coupled with the convenience of league affiliation for all of its other sports.

The real story will be whether the Longhorns show any mutual interest. Would Texas even consider giving up its spot as the king of the Big 12? Would it surrender its rivalries with Oklahoma and Texas A&M?

People say Texas could schedule the Sooners and Aggies in non-conference play, but if the Longhorns abandon the Big 12, would the league allow itself to be affiliated with them in any way?

Yes, Texas would make more money from the Big Ten's television agreements, but would that be enough to compensate for flying non-revenue teams to Minneapolis and State College rather than busing them to Waco and College Station?

"How could the state of Texas even let them go? I don't see it," the Big Ten source said.

A source from another conference said the Big Ten, which could expand to 12 teams, 14 teams or bond with another league to form a super-conference, will make its decision strictly on finances.

"It will be purely an economic decision," the source said.

Meaning if the league decides schools such as Missouri, Pittsburgh and Rutgers qualify on the athletic and academic fronts, the decision on whether to extend invitations will come down to university presidents asking: Which, if any institutions, can make us the most money?

Right now the pie is divided into 11 slices. If it’s going to be 12 or 14, would there be enough revenue to make up for more pieces? Simply adding a Big Ten title game in football wouldn't help all that much. The $15 million in additional revenue computes to less than $1.5 million per school.

If it's determined that adding Rutgers can get the Big Ten Network on expanded basic cable in New York, then the Scarlet Knights get a huge check mark in their favor.

Rutgers, with its substandard Big East TV deal ($5 million to $6 million per year vs. $20 million per year per Big Ten school), would be crazy not to pursue an invitation from the Big Ten.

Texas? We will believe it when we hear it.

If Texas doesn't go and the Big XII takes Missouri that is going to hurt Texas.

Its either kill or be killed.

"If it's determined that adding Rutgers can get the Big Ten Network on expanded basic cable in New York, then the Scarlet Knights get a huge check mark in their favor."

Fat chance of that happening. Though NYC loves Rutgers when they are winning, Rutgers is in New Jersey and hardly plays basketball any better than St. Johns. NYC is not yet in love with college FB so the only game in town is BB. St. Johns has a better chance of being on basic cable in NYC than Rutgers does. Heck they can schedule Fordam, NYU and John Jay College and get about 200 cable subscriptions right there. That's about it. If that's the BTN plan, Rutgers is safe, Syr is safe and the BE won't be getting any calls from the BTN. No single BE school can give you the NYC market and nobody in NYC is going to pay to watch Ill play Northwestern. The BTN needs four BE teams to even think about the NYC market.

If it were that easy, the BE would have done it by now. We're not stupid.

(02-13-2010 04:17 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  If Texas doesn't go and the Big XII takes Missouri that is going to hurt Texas.

Its either kill or be killed.

Nonsense. The Big 10 needs Texas as much, if not more, than Texas needs the Big 10.

Nebraska's AD said yesterday that they will listen to the B10's offer. So the B10 could add NB, TX and Mo to get to 14.

(02-13-2010 05:27 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Nebraska's AD said yesterday that they will listen to the B10's offer. So the B10 could add NB, TX and Mo to get to 14.

If that's the case, you will probably see two of the following schools headed to the ACC:1.Rutgers. 2.Syracuse. 3.UConn. 4.Pitt & 5.West Virginia.

(02-13-2010 05:31 PM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 05:27 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Nebraska's AD said yesterday that they will listen to the B10's offer. So the B10 could add NB, TX and Mo to get to 14.

If that's the case, you will probably see two of the following schools headed to the ACC:1.Rutgers. 2.Syracuse. 3.UConn. 4.Pitt & 5.West Virginia.

Cuse and UConn is my guess.

It is sort of funny, but when ND turned down the Big Ten in 1999, many from that conference said that it was because ND was "greedy".

Many others have also branded ND as "greedy" over the years.

Now, multiple sources inside the Big Ten say that expansion talk and expansion candidate review is "all about the money". Ironic. It turns out that "greed is good" when we are talking conferences.

If ND were truly only concerned about money (which would not make them unique among college football programs), it would be jumping at joining the Big Ten.

Apparently, things like football independence and tradition are more important to them than maximizing revenue. What happened to ND being more greedy than others, if that were ever true?

Another question, why is being "greedy" bad for ND but not conferences or other schools?

Greed is good. Maybe not completely unchecked rampant greed, but greed is good. Its what makes the economy grow etc.

Oh, I know and I agree.

But I have read about one billion articles, quotes and message board posts over the years complaining that ND was "greedy".

Now, it is open season on greed for the Big Ten, Pac-10, etc...and everyone admits it and seems to endorse it.

I guess it depends on who is being "greedy".

Being greed is not the issue. Its like not offering me a piece of your pie and you eat it all. But then, you want me to share my pie with you? Well, dude that is what ND is doing to the Big East.

(02-13-2010 04:51 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:17 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  If Texas doesn't go and the Big XII takes Missouri that is going to hurt Texas.

Its either kill or be killed.

Nonsense. The Big 10 needs Texas as much, if not more, than Texas needs the Big 10.

Stop and think about what Airport KC is saying.

Big Ten takes Mizzou. Pac-10 expands with Utah and Colorado.

Current Big 12 deal that makes them 4th of 5 super conferences ahead of only Pac-10 plummets like a ROCK without the states of Missouri and Colorado.

Heck, even with BYU, the new Big 12 would have trouble keeping ahead of the Big East since once ESPN signs the ACC for both bb and fb it wouldn't surprise me at all if Raycom or some other entity doesn't offer the Big East $36-40 million or so for bb alone.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-13-2010 06:43 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:51 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:17 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  If Texas doesn't go and the Big XII takes Missouri that is going to hurt Texas.

Its either kill or be killed.

Nonsense. The Big 10 needs Texas as much, if not more, than Texas needs the Big 10.

Stop and think about what Airport KC is saying.

Big Ten takes Mizzou. Pac-10 expands with Utah and Colorado.

Current Big 12 deal that makes them 4th of 5 super conferences ahead of only Pac-10 plummets like a ROCK without the states of Missouri and Colorado.

Heck, even with BYU, the new Big 12 would have trouble keeping ahead of the Big East since once ESPN signs the ACC for both bb and fb it wouldn't surprise me at all if Raycom or some other entity doesn't offer the Big East $36-40 million or so for bb alone.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas may very well vacate the Big 12 anyway, and along with Oklahoma form its own 9-10 team conference. This scenario has been discussed before. Texas does not need the Big 10 to generate a lot more money than its currently generating from the Big 12.

Again, show me the numbers that a 14 team super big 10 generates the kind of revenue that makes it financially advantageous. The Big 10 will stop with Texas if it can get it, in my humble opinion.

(02-13-2010 07:12 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 06:43 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:51 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:17 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  If Texas doesn't go and the Big XII takes Missouri that is going to hurt Texas.

Its either kill or be killed.

Nonsense. The Big 10 needs Texas as much, if not more, than Texas needs the Big 10.

Stop and think about what Airport KC is saying.

Big Ten takes Mizzou. Pac-10 expands with Utah and Colorado.

Current Big 12 deal that makes them 4th of 5 super conferences ahead of only Pac-10 plummets like a ROCK without the states of Missouri and Colorado.

Heck, even with BYU, the new Big 12 would have trouble keeping ahead of the Big East since once ESPN signs the ACC for both bb and fb it wouldn't surprise me at all if Raycom or some other entity doesn't offer the Big East $36-40 million or so for bb alone.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas may very well vacate the Big 12 anyway, and along with Oklahoma form its own 9-10 team conference. This scenario has been discussed before. Texas does not need the Big 10 to generate a lot more money than its currently generating from the Big 12.

Again, show me the numbers that a 14 team super big 10 generates the kind of revenue that makes it financially advantageous. The Big 10 will stop with Texas if it can get it, in my humble opinion.

I don't know about that, on the radio show I listened to the other day they were saying that Texas and other big 12 programs had to have like 7 pay-per-view games a year to try and meet their financial goals. The announcers also were saying that this expansion is about generating money for the Big Ten Network --the more quality programming to get high level advertising the better.

(02-13-2010 05:31 PM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 05:27 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Nebraska's AD said yesterday that they will listen to the B10's offer. So the B10 could add NB, TX and Mo to get to 14.

If that's the case, you will probably see two of the following schools headed to the ACC:1.Rutgers. 2.Syracuse. 3.UConn. 4.Pitt & 5.West Virginia.

LOL. PLEASE!!!!! Stop this ACC to 14 nonsense. They are still trying to say the lat expansion was a financial success adding two more BE teams will NOT improve their financial situation.

(02-13-2010 07:12 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 06:43 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:51 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:17 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  If Texas doesn't go and the Big XII takes Missouri that is going to hurt Texas.

Its either kill or be killed.

Nonsense. The Big 10 needs Texas as much, if not more, than Texas needs the Big 10.

Stop and think about what Airport KC is saying.

Big Ten takes Mizzou. Pac-10 expands with Utah and Colorado.

Current Big 12 deal that makes them 4th of 5 super conferences ahead of only Pac-10 plummets like a ROCK without the states of Missouri and Colorado.

Heck, even with BYU, the new Big 12 would have trouble keeping ahead of the Big East since once ESPN signs the ACC for both bb and fb it wouldn't surprise me at all if Raycom or some other entity doesn't offer the Big East $36-40 million or so for bb alone.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas may very well vacate the Big 12 anyway, and along with Oklahoma form its own 9-10 team conference. This scenario has been discussed before. Texas does not need the Big 10 to generate a lot more money than its currently generating from the Big 12.

And this 9 or 10 league will get $$$ from where? Who will be part of it? 4 Texas schools, 2 Oklahoma schools, 1 Nebraska school, and 2 Kansas schools? Please tell me you don't think Arkansas and LSU will join with them.

Anyway, even if they add BYU, that conference would be about 12 million TVHHs. I'd be shocked if that conference made more $$$ than the current Big 12 contracts.

Quote:Again, show me the numbers that a 14 team super big 10 generates the kind of revenue that makes it financially advantageous. The Big 10 will stop with Texas if it can get it, in my humble opinion.

Texas has over $8.5 million TVHHs. At 70 cents a month per subscriber that is over $71 million annually, of which the Big Ten would get 51% or $36 million right there for the BTN.

Add in a CCG, should the Big Ten decide to go that route, and there is another $12-15 million there.

Not to mention that ESPN will likely up the national contracts by another $5 million since they will be reducing the Big 12 contracts due to its losing it's BIGGEST draw by a mile.

There is $53 million of income right there. Which is why the Big Ten will consider going to 14 if it means getting Texas.

Now $$$ isn't everything, so other things may prevent this from happening.

But trust me on this - if it doesn't happen in regard to Texas, it won't be because the $$$ wasn't there.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-13-2010 05:31 PM)Brick City Pirate Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 05:27 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Nebraska's AD said yesterday that they will listen to the B10's offer. So the B10 could add NB, TX and Mo to get to 14.

If that's the case, you will probably see two of the following schools headed to the ACC:1.Rutgers. 2.Syracuse. 3.UConn. 4.Pitt & 5.West Virginia.

Please explain why a BE school would head to the ACC. I can understand if you said the SEC. Most likely ACC school would look to join the SEC. The ACC is a sinking ship and even Miami and FSU are just about worthless-- so please explain why you think BE schools would head to the ACC- You think they want to be broke?

Only the BTN and the SEC have big money TV deals. The ACC is struggling to get some crumbs on their next renegotiations.

(02-13-2010 08:14 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 07:12 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 06:43 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:51 PM)WacoBearcat Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 04:17 PM)Airport KC Wrote:  If Texas doesn't go and the Big XII takes Missouri that is going to hurt Texas.

Its either kill or be killed.

Nonsense. The Big 10 needs Texas as much, if not more, than Texas needs the Big 10.

Stop and think about what Airport KC is saying.

Big Ten takes Mizzou. Pac-10 expands with Utah and Colorado.

Current Big 12 deal that makes them 4th of 5 super conferences ahead of only Pac-10 plummets like a ROCK without the states of Missouri and Colorado.

Heck, even with BYU, the new Big 12 would have trouble keeping ahead of the Big East since once ESPN signs the ACC for both bb and fb it wouldn't surprise me at all if Raycom or some other entity doesn't offer the Big East $36-40 million or so for bb alone.

Cheers,
Neil

Texas may very well vacate the Big 12 anyway, and along with Oklahoma form its own 9-10 team conference. This scenario has been discussed before. Texas does not need the Big 10 to generate a lot more money than its currently generating from the Big 12.

And this 9 or 10 league will get $$$ from where? Who will be part of it? 4 Texas schools, 2 Oklahoma schools, 1 Nebraska school, and 2 Kansas schools? Please tell me you don't think Arkansas and LSU will join with them.

Anyway, even if they add BYU, that conference would be about 12 million TVHHs. I'd be shocked if that conference made more $$$ than the current Big 12 contracts.

Quote:Again, show me the numbers that a 14 team super big 10 generates the kind of revenue that makes it financially advantageous. The Big 10 will stop with Texas if it can get it, in my humble opinion.

Texas has over $8.5 million TVHHs. At 70 cents a month per subscriber that is over $71 million annually, of which the Big Ten would get 51% or $36 million right there for the BTN.

Add in a CCG, should the Big Ten decide to go that route, and there is another $12-15 million there.

Not to mention that ESPN will likely up the national contracts by another $5 million since they will be reducing the Big 12 contracts due to its losing it's BIGGEST draw by a mile.

There is $53 million of income right there. Which is why the Big Ten will consider going to 14 if it means getting Texas.

Now $$$ isn't everything, so other things may prevent this from happening.

But trust me on this - if it doesn't happen in regard to Texas, it won't be because the $$$ wasn't there.

Cheers,
Neil

Yup if they have to take A&M it sweetens their pot in Texas in getting 70+ cents (I believe full asking price is $1 per month per household.) Say they then take Missouri with its tv households they add more revenue still to make it worth it. I think taking A&M & Mizzou while not preferred ends up making more than enough extra money on top of what Texas brings alone to make it worth it. And as time goes on Texas becomes more and more of a Big Ten state as a result. Missouri will become a true Big Ten state much faster as it has a rivalry already with Illinois and can easily develop them with other regional foes Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota as well as the rest of the Big Ten.

(02-13-2010 09:02 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Yup if they have to take A&M it sweetens their pot in Texas in getting 70+ cents (I believe full asking price is $1 per month per household.) Say they then take Missouri with its tv households they add more revenue still to make it worth it. I think taking A&M & Mizzou while not preferred ends up making more than enough extra money on top of what Texas brings alone to make it worth it. And as time goes on Texas becomes more and more of a Big Ten state as a result. Missouri will become a true Big Ten state much faster as it has a rivalry already with Illinois and can easily develop them with other regional foes Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota as well as the rest of the Big Ten.

Hail Brista!

My understanding is that the initial asking price was a $1.10 per month per subscriber in the Big Ten's 8-state region, but it was negotiable from the start. And since so many cable providers balked at the asking price in the beginning, in order to get in as many TVHHs as possible, the asking price went down. The most recent information I read on this was that the average subscriber within the region is "paying" 70 plus cents.

Cheers,
Neil

(02-13-2010 09:23 PM)omnicarrier Wrote:  

(02-13-2010 09:02 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Yup if they have to take A&M it sweetens their pot in Texas in getting 70+ cents (I believe full asking price is $1 per month per household.) Say they then take Missouri with its tv households they add more revenue still to make it worth it. I think taking A&M & Mizzou while not preferred ends up making more than enough extra money on top of what Texas brings alone to make it worth it. And as time goes on Texas becomes more and more of a Big Ten state as a result. Missouri will become a true Big Ten state much faster as it has a rivalry already with Illinois and can easily develop them with other regional foes Northwestern, Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota as well as the rest of the Big Ten.

Hail Brista!

My understanding is that the initial asking price was a $1.10 per month per subscriber in the Big Ten's 8-state region, but it was negotiable from the start. And since so many cable providers balked at the asking price in the beginning, in order to get in as many TVHHs as possible, the asking price went down. The most recent information I read on this was that the average subscriber within the region is "paying" 70 plus cents.

Cheers,
Neil

I don't know about the "subscribers" paying---the cable companies are paying 70 cents per subscriber where they could get that --which of course might be hidden in the cable fees but they don't show it that way. I suspect some of the areas they had more trouble getting into the BTN is receiving less.