I didn't realize the graduation rate for basketball was so low.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/busine....html?_r=0

“The hypocrisy is that money that’s generated makes a few people very, very rich,” Mr. Duderstadt said. “Athletic directors, coaches, assistant coaches, commissioners, too. But institutions are not winning and student-athletes get very little.”

Mr. Delany counters that those TV revenues paid for athletic scholarships worth $150 million last year in the Big Ten. Others question the value of scholarships for big-time football and basketball players, considering that the graduation rate for football players is 58 percent, and for basketball players, 47 percent; many also argue that these athletes should be paid, in light of the huge revenue they generate.

Rutgers won realignment hands down. There's not a negative out there that would make them reconsider.

Quote:During the negotiations to join the Big Ten, when Maryland’s president, Wallace Loh, expressed concern about the limited capacity of the school’s football stadium, Mr. Delany reassured him. “He told me it’s no longer butts on seats,” Dr. Loh said, “but eyeballs on screens.”

If Maryland had true fans, it would still be in the ACC.

(12-02-2013 08:33 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  I didn't realize the graduation rate for basketball was so low.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/busine....html?_r=0

“The hypocrisy is that money that’s generated makes a few people very, very rich,” Mr. Duderstadt said. “Athletic directors, coaches, assistant coaches, commissioners, too. But institutions are not winning and student-athletes get very little.”

Mr. Delany counters that those TV revenues paid for athletic scholarships worth $150 million last year in the Big Ten. Others question the value of scholarships for big-time football and basketball players, considering that the graduation rate for football players is 58 percent, and for basketball players, 47 percent; many also argue that these athletes should be paid, in light of the huge revenue they generate.

Give the devil Delany his due.

I said back in July of 2007 that the two things that will change the college athletics landscape were a successful BTN and a four-team college football "playoff" or the implementation of the Plus One if they couldn't get to the four team playoff.

Even said in that same post a successful BTN would force the SEC to get a Texas team (if not both of them) in order to try and get close to the BiG with a successful BTN in terms of TV money.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-02-2013 09:08 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

Quote:During the negotiations to join the Big Ten, when Maryland’s president, Wallace Loh, expressed concern about the limited capacity of the school’s football stadium, Mr. Delany reassured him. “He told me it’s no longer butts on seats,” Dr. Loh said, “but eyeballs on screens.”

If Maryland had true fans, it would still be in the ACC.

That statement doesn't make any sense. Nebraska surely has "true fans" by any measure - does that mean they should still be in the Big 12?

(12-02-2013 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:08 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

Quote:During the negotiations to join the Big Ten, when Maryland’s president, Wallace Loh, expressed concern about the limited capacity of the school’s football stadium, Mr. Delany reassured him. “He told me it’s no longer butts on seats,” Dr. Loh said, “but eyeballs on screens.”

If Maryland had true fans, it would still be in the ACC.

That statement doesn't make any sense. Nebraska surely has "true fans" by any measure - does that mean they should still be in the Big 12?

Nebraska's motivation for moving to BIG was not financial distress like Maryland. Had Maryland sold tickets and luxury suites, than it would not have sought out a better financial arrangement.

(12-02-2013 09:25 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:08 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

Quote:During the negotiations to join the Big Ten, when Maryland’s president, Wallace Loh, expressed concern about the limited capacity of the school’s football stadium, Mr. Delany reassured him. “He told me it’s no longer butts on seats,” Dr. Loh said, “but eyeballs on screens.”

If Maryland had true fans, it would still be in the ACC.

That statement doesn't make any sense. Nebraska surely has "true fans" by any measure - does that mean they should still be in the Big 12?

Nebraska's motivation for moving to BIG was not financial distress like Maryland.

Regardless of financial distress, the Big Ten financial advantage is still quite compelling for even wealthy schools (like Nebraska). Maryland going to the Big Ten isn't a shock for anyone that's been following conference realignment for awhile - I know a lot of fans might think it's a massive change, but it makes sense in the new paradigm. Neither the Big Ten nor the ACC are the same leagues that they were 20 years ago.

(12-02-2013 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:08 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

Quote:During the negotiations to join the Big Ten, when Maryland’s president, Wallace Loh, expressed concern about the limited capacity of the school’s football stadium, Mr. Delany reassured him. “He told me it’s no longer butts on seats,” Dr. Loh said, “but eyeballs on screens.”

If Maryland had true fans, it would still be in the ACC.

That statement doesn't make any sense. Nebraska surely has "true fans" by any measure - does that mean they should still be in the Big 12?

UNL was the Big XII's most vocal critic in its formative years, and were it not for the PAC-10 formally inviting Colorado, probably the biggest flight risk. When the news the games with Oklahoma weren't going to be a yearly thing anymore, there was a lot more indifference running through Lincoln.

UMD football isn't much different, but its basketball fans have every reason to not like Loh for the move. And, I have to agree with them...Loh treated them like an afterthought for a football program that sometimes couldn't draw flies, and will only be getting by based on "cheap pops," like more games with better-traveling fans of big-time programs, and cable pick-up's (which everyone gets anyway, and where other conferences are likely to do, too).

(12-02-2013 09:08 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

Quote:During the negotiations to join the Big Ten, when Maryland’s president, Wallace Loh, expressed concern about the limited capacity of the school’s football stadium, Mr. Delany reassured him. “He told me it’s no longer butts on seats,” Dr. Loh said, “but eyeballs on screens.”

If Maryland had true fans, it would still be in the ACC.

I lived in DC for 38 years. It was my observation that Washington, DC identified itself with Baltimore, Philly, NYC, and Boston. Colleges like Georgetown, George Washington, and American also identified with the northeast, rather than the south and drew many of its students from the northeast.

I note you are a Maryland fan and probably have access to info that I don't have. So what I am going to say may be all wrong. But it was my observation that Maryland U and also Virginia, as an institution, identified itself more with the northeast rather than the south.

Accordingly, I don't think there is the opposition by Maryland fans that you state. No doubt there are mixed feelings by Maryland fans, especially if you were a basketball fan....and Maryland basketball was very good whereas its football teams have been so so over the years.

When Cable moves to pay per station or pay per view within the next 5 years, its going to be back on intensity of support rather than casual eyeballs. The Big Ten is not going to be in such an advantageous position then

(12-02-2013 09:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  When Cable moves to pay per station or pay per view within the next 5 years, its going to be back on intensity of support rather than casual eyeballs. The Big Ten is not going to be in such an advantageous position then

While recognizing a la carte could reduce the BTN's influence, keep in mind the government truly doesn't want a la carte since many of the TV networks that would go away entirely are ones they want kept around.

Cheers,
Neil

(12-02-2013 09:35 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:19 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(12-02-2013 09:08 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

Quote:During the negotiations to join the Big Ten, when Maryland’s president, Wallace Loh, expressed concern about the limited capacity of the school’s football stadium, Mr. Delany reassured him. “He told me it’s no longer butts on seats,” Dr. Loh said, “but eyeballs on screens.”

If Maryland had true fans, it would still be in the ACC.

That statement doesn't make any sense. Nebraska surely has "true fans" by any measure - does that mean they should still be in the Big 12?

UNL was the Big XII's most vocal critic in its formative years, and were it not for the PAC-10 formally inviting Colorado, probably the biggest flight risk. When the news the games with Oklahoma weren't going to be a yearly thing anymore, there was a lot more indifference running through Lincoln.

UMD football isn't much different, but its basketball fans have every reason to not like Loh for the move. And, I have to agree with them...Loh treated them like an afterthought for a football program that sometimes couldn't draw flies, and will only be getting by based on "cheap pops," like more games with better-traveling fans of big-time programs, and cable pick-up's (which everyone gets anyway, and where other conferences are likely to do, too).

nebraska was the biggest flight risk?????????

colorado joined the b12 over the p10 on just a 5-4 vote with 2 of the b12 votes publicly recanting. ==> if thats not the textbook definition of a school being a flight risk then i dont know what is

(12-02-2013 09:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  When Cable moves to pay per station or pay per view within the next 5 years, its going to be back on intensity of support rather than casual eyeballs. The Big Ten is not going to be in such an advantageous position then

Delany knows that the Big Ten will never have the level of intensity of support that SEC football has. (Neither will any other league.) Delany's idea for compensating for lower intensity is planting flags in huge TV markets. Time will tell whether that works out.

(12-02-2013 09:45 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  When Cable moves to pay per station or pay per view within the next 5 years, its going to be back on intensity of support rather than casual eyeballs. The Big Ten is not going to be in such an advantageous position then

And this is completely faulty reasoning that I keep seeing over and over again. The entire reason why the Big Ten Network was successful in the first place was BECAUSE the Big Ten had (and has) the intensity of support. You can't get onto basic cable in the first place without such intensity. The Big Ten was already the wealthiest conference before the BTN was created and it has had the best slate of bowls next to the SEC *because* it has those rabid traveling fans combined with large population centers (just the New York Yankees were the wealthiest MLB franchise before the YES Network was created). The ACC and Pac-12 have the large population centers, but don't have the fan intensity. The Big 12 has the fan intensity, but not the large population centers (with the exception of the state of Texas, which UT can carry alone).

There are reasons to believe that the addition of Rutgers specifically won't work the way that the Big Ten wants to. However, the underlying reason why the BTN has been successful up to this point would translate both in the basic cable and the a la carte world. The only other conference that can compete on those terms is the SEC (who has already signed everything over to ESPN, anyway). Everyone else is at the whims of how much third parties like ESPN and Fox are going to pay.

They completely fail to recognize the monetary impact on campus just by getting people to attend those games... between going to the campus bookstore and buying up logo gear, donations made to the University (not just sports), etc.. The schools get a huge influx of cash through getting those alums invested in the school. Cincinnati has recognized that with the Big East and UC football becoming a top 25 team and in 1 season almost making the BCS championship. The amount of money that has been donated has skyrocketed and their revenues are up considerably from students and alumni giving... get the people back on campus and see how much money you bring in.

(12-02-2013 10:29 AM)mlb Wrote:  They completely fail to recognize the monetary impact on campus just by getting people to attend those games... between going to the campus bookstore and buying up logo gear, donations made to the University (not just sports), etc.. The schools get a huge influx of cash through getting those alums invested in the school. Cincinnati has recognized that with the Big East and UC football becoming a top 25 team and in 1 season almost making the BCS championship. The amount of money that has been donated has skyrocketed and their revenues are up considerably from students and alumni giving... get the people back on campus and see how much money you bring in.

But Delany was said to have made the opposite comment in the article. Its eyeballs on the screens, not fans in stands. The downsize stadiums and increase prices philosophy works against everything you described.

(12-02-2013 10:33 AM)bullet Wrote:  But Delany was said to have made the opposite comment in the article. Its eyeballs on the screens, not fans in stands. The downsize stadiums and increase prices philosophy works against everything you described.

For athletic departments and their TV money, absolutely.

I'm talking about the school getting its share of the money. The sheer amount of good will towards the school to get top scholars and donations to the school in general that are generated thanks to athletics is HUGE. Cincinnati just completed a $1B fundraising campaign and I can promise you that they would not have done it in their timeframe without athletics getting potential donors on campus. That is why UC is spending $80M+ on remodeling Nippert Stadium beginning next week. They need to stay relevant and in the minds on the alumni and business leaders in order to keep the "investment" coming into UC.

(12-02-2013 10:26 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  The Big Ten was already the wealthiest conference before the BTN was created and it has had the best slate of bowls next to the SEC *because* it has those rabid traveling fans combined with large population centers (just the New York Yankees were the wealthiest MLB franchise before the YES Network was created). The ACC and Pac-12 have the large population centers, but don't have the fan intensity.

There are a lot of B1G haters that can't bring themselves to admit these truths.

why are we criticizing the b10????

this conference has been the biggest proponent for reform on this very issue

(12-02-2013 10:29 AM)mlb Wrote:  They completely fail to recognize the monetary impact on campus just by getting people to attend those games... between going to the campus bookstore and buying up logo gear, donations made to the University (not just sports), etc.. The schools get a huge influx of cash through getting those alums invested in the school. Cincinnati has recognized that with the Big East and UC football becoming a top 25 team and in 1 season almost making the BCS championship. The amount of money that has been donated has skyrocketed and their revenues are up considerably from students and alumni giving... get the people back on campus and see how much money you bring in.

this^^^^^

and thats what so many people fail to understand

TCU ==> majority of their alumni lives within the b12 footprint
colorado ==> majority of their alumni lives within the p12 footprint

both schools saw massive donation increases due in largely to switching conferences where they became more accessible to their alumni