(03-12-2015 08:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 08:43 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I think the Big 10 is looking at UVA and UNC. There would be dozens of "issues" with that move, but nothing should surprise us anymore.

There is a very big problem with the idea of The Big Ten ever landing UNC. Sorry, it's extremely unlikely to happen. There are very real roadblocks to that happening.

Agree, I think the fact that UNC is basically the boss of the ACC combined with the academic fraud scandals probably make them unlikely to end up moving. It'll probably end up Texas + Oklahoma, with the conference also trying hard to get FSU + Duke to get to 18.

(03-11-2015 07:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:00 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I just don't think Texas is going to split their money any further with the Cincinnati's of the world. They couldn't stomach Louisville, and you think they'll bring in Cincinnati?

Not just Texas, but also WVU, Oklahoma, TCU, and every other B12 team. They have been quite open and honest about this: they will NOT expand unless a team is available that can pull it's own weight in terms of revenue. And there is NOT a team out there that can do this.

Is this smart? I have no idea. But it is what it is. But some refuse to hear or believe it

BJ,

Please show the data to support your implication that TCU, Texas Tech, Iowa State and Kansas State pull their own weight in terms of revenue, which I've seen is around $25M/year. Ticket sales can't account for it and, aside from the local market, they have little national pull.

If a school can bring to the conference all the money they'd expect at payout - why join in the first place? I'm sure that's ND's position with respect to the ACC.

If the Big12 expands, many factors will come into play.

I still think the way to go for the AAC is to put their lock on the top non-power conference... I don't see that happening right now.. and I think a bunch of schools will jump ship at the first chance if they don't do something.

(03-12-2015 10:56 AM)westwolf Wrote:  The Big 10 definitely does not want UConn.

Any sources to back up that claim, Mr. CR-Expert?

(03-13-2015 11:54 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:56 AM)westwolf Wrote:  The Big 10 definitely does not want UConn.

Any sources to back up that claim, Mr. CR-Expert?

Them not wanting UConn would only be because the last team they brought in from UConn's league was nothing more than a TV market and a lot of embarrassment... and they already have the TV market. (Of course, it all changes when the networks start putting their products on non-cable monopoly platforms and it's up to the viewer to pay, not to have it forced on them... 200,000 New England senior citizens asking their grandkids how to watch UConn Women's Basketball on their computer or smart phone hahaha).

(03-13-2015 12:01 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:54 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:56 AM)westwolf Wrote:  The Big 10 definitely does not want UConn.

Any sources to back up that claim, Mr. CR-Expert?

Them not wanting UConn would only be because the last team they brought in from UConn's league was nothing more than a TV market and a lot of embarrassment... and they already have the TV market. (Of course, it all changes when the networks start putting their products on non-cable monopoly platforms and it's up to the viewer to pay, not to have it forced on them... 200,000 New England senior citizens asking their grandkids how to watch UConn Women's Basketball on their computer or smart phone hahaha).

Nobody has anything forced on them. Eliminating bundling will change product elasticities, which will result in less efficient pricing. However, no rational person is paying more for cable than they think it's worth. Why would they? Also, no cable provider is paying more for content than they think it's worth. Why would they? Since, the value of access to content for cable providers is what their customers will pay, the expected compensation for content producers is aligned with what the aggregate of individual customers* are willing to pay for their product + advertising revenues.

The entire theory behing geography leading to revenue in and of itself is wrong. Similarily, the argument behind cable companies "forcing" consumers to buy content is also wrong.

Yes, cruddy content may be packaged with attractive content, but you aren't paying for the crud that you don't care about and don't watch. You're just paying closer to how much you value the good content.

And yes, I know the structure of the cable co - content producer contracts is such that the networks are compensated based on the number of customers with access to their content, but they don't do that blindly. Your demographic was taken into account when the parties did du diligence when negotiating the TV contracts.

*This is actually more complicated than it seems, but close enough for the purposes of this post.

(03-13-2015 12:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:01 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:54 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:56 AM)westwolf Wrote:  The Big 10 definitely does not want UConn.

Any sources to back up that claim, Mr. CR-Expert?

Them not wanting UConn would only be because the last team they brought in from UConn's league was nothing more than a TV market and a lot of embarrassment... and they already have the TV market. (Of course, it all changes when the networks start putting their products on non-cable monopoly platforms and it's up to the viewer to pay, not to have it forced on them... 200,000 New England senior citizens asking their grandkids how to watch UConn Women's Basketball on their computer or smart phone hahaha).

Nobody has anything forced on them. Eliminating bundling will change product elasticities, which will result in less efficient pricing. However, no rational person is paying more for cable than they think it's worth. Why would they? Also, no cable provider is paying more for content than they think it's worth. Why would they? Since, the value of access to content for cable providers is what their customers will pay, the expected compensation for content producers is aligned with what the aggregate of individual customers* are willing to pay for their product + advertising revenues.

The entire theory behing geography leading to revenue in and of itself is wrong. Similarily, the argument behind cable companies "forcing" consumers to buy content is also wrong.

Yes, cruddy content may be packaged with attractive content, but you aren't paying for the crud that you don't care about and don't watch. You're just paying closer to how much you value the good content.

And yes, I know the structure of the cable co - content producer contracts is such that the networks are compensated based on the number of customers with access to their content, but they don't do that blindly. Your demographic was taken into account when the parties did du diligence when negotiating the TV contracts.

*This is actually more complicated than it seems, but close enough for the purposes of this post.

I'd have to pay $15 more a month to watch ESPN2 + 25 other channels I'll never watch. Cable is going to go more a la carte or it's going away. (in my package, ESPN stuff is broken out over 3 tiers... one with ESPN, one with ESPNU and the other with all the other ESPN's including ESPN2)

All I want is ESPN and all its networks, B1G, Fox Sports, CBS Sports and YES.. I'd pay $20 a month for those rather than $50 a month for half of those and a bunch of stupid political channels and shows about aliens. At least that's how the tiering works for me here locally.

(03-13-2015 12:47 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:01 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:54 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-12-2015 10:56 AM)westwolf Wrote:  The Big 10 definitely does not want UConn.

Any sources to back up that claim, Mr. CR-Expert?

Them not wanting UConn would only be because the last team they brought in from UConn's league was nothing more than a TV market and a lot of embarrassment... and they already have the TV market. (Of course, it all changes when the networks start putting their products on non-cable monopoly platforms and it's up to the viewer to pay, not to have it forced on them... 200,000 New England senior citizens asking their grandkids how to watch UConn Women's Basketball on their computer or smart phone hahaha).

Nobody has anything forced on them. Eliminating bundling will change product elasticities, which will result in less efficient pricing. However, no rational person is paying more for cable than they think it's worth. Why would they? Also, no cable provider is paying more for content than they think it's worth. Why would they? Since, the value of access to content for cable providers is what their customers will pay, the expected compensation for content producers is aligned with what the aggregate of individual customers* are willing to pay for their product + advertising revenues.

The entire theory behing geography leading to revenue in and of itself is wrong. Similarily, the argument behind cable companies "forcing" consumers to buy content is also wrong.

Yes, cruddy content may be packaged with attractive content, but you aren't paying for the crud that you don't care about and don't watch. You're just paying closer to how much you value the good content.

And yes, I know the structure of the cable co - content producer contracts is such that the networks are compensated based on the number of customers with access to their content, but they don't do that blindly. Your demographic was taken into account when the parties did du diligence when negotiating the TV contracts.

*This is actually more complicated than it seems, but close enough for the purposes of this post.

I'd have to pay $15 more a month to watch ESPN2 + 25 other channels I'll never watch. Cable is going to go more a la carte or it's going away. (in my package, ESPN stuff is broken out over 3 tiers... one with ESPN, one with ESPNU and the other with all the other ESPN's including ESPN2)

All I want is ESPN and all its networks, B1G, Fox Sports, CBS Sports and YES.. I'd pay $20 a month for those rather than $50 a month for half of those and a bunch of stupid political channels and shows about aliens. At least that's how the tiering works for me here locally.

I tried to screen shot an example of it but comcast's website was pretty awful.. you'll just have to take my word for it and my disdain when ESPN runs inferior games on ESPN than ESPN2 and I have to go to my neighbor's house.

(03-13-2015 12:51 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:47 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:41 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 12:01 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:54 AM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Any sources to back up that claim, Mr. CR-Expert?

Them not wanting UConn would only be because the last team they brought in from UConn's league was nothing more than a TV market and a lot of embarrassment... and they already have the TV market. (Of course, it all changes when the networks start putting their products on non-cable monopoly platforms and it's up to the viewer to pay, not to have it forced on them... 200,000 New England senior citizens asking their grandkids how to watch UConn Women's Basketball on their computer or smart phone hahaha).

Nobody has anything forced on them. Eliminating bundling will change product elasticities, which will result in less efficient pricing. However, no rational person is paying more for cable than they think it's worth. Why would they? Also, no cable provider is paying more for content than they think it's worth. Why would they? Since, the value of access to content for cable providers is what their customers will pay, the expected compensation for content producers is aligned with what the aggregate of individual customers* are willing to pay for their product + advertising revenues.

The entire theory behing geography leading to revenue in and of itself is wrong. Similarily, the argument behind cable companies "forcing" consumers to buy content is also wrong.

Yes, cruddy content may be packaged with attractive content, but you aren't paying for the crud that you don't care about and don't watch. You're just paying closer to how much you value the good content.

And yes, I know the structure of the cable co - content producer contracts is such that the networks are compensated based on the number of customers with access to their content, but they don't do that blindly. Your demographic was taken into account when the parties did du diligence when negotiating the TV contracts.

*This is actually more complicated than it seems, but close enough for the purposes of this post.

I'd have to pay $15 more a month to watch ESPN2 + 25 other channels I'll never watch. Cable is going to go more a la carte or it's going away. (in my package, ESPN stuff is broken out over 3 tiers... one with ESPN, one with ESPNU and the other with all the other ESPN's including ESPN2)

All I want is ESPN and all its networks, B1G, Fox Sports, CBS Sports and YES.. I'd pay $20 a month for those rather than $50 a month for half of those and a bunch of stupid political channels and shows about aliens. At least that's how the tiering works for me here locally.

I tried to screen shot an example of it but comcast's website was pretty awful.. you'll just have to take my word for it and my disdain when ESPN runs inferior games on ESPN than ESPN2 and I have to go to my neighbor's house.

Full disclosure: Comcast owns a major competitor of the company that employs me. That competitor is highly involved in college athletics. From what I know there and my job, I think it goes a lot deeper than what either of us have said here.

(03-13-2015 11:43 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  I still think the way to go for the AAC is to put their lock on the top non-power conference... I don't see that happening right now.. and I think a bunch of schools will jump ship at the first chance if they don't do something.

If they have a chance to go somewhere better, they will. Its not like P5 invites are being handed out like candy on Halloween. There's nowhere better to go.

(03-13-2015 02:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:43 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  I still think the way to go for the AAC is to put their lock on the top non-power conference... I don't see that happening right now.. and I think a bunch of schools will jump ship at the first chance if they don't do something.

If they have a chance to go somewhere better, they will. Its not like P5 invites are being handed out like candy on Halloween. There's nowhere better to go.

I suppose if AAC could get revenue up to $25 million per team or so that defections might no longer be a threat.

(03-13-2015 03:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 02:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:43 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  I still think the way to go for the AAC is to put their lock on the top non-power conference... I don't see that happening right now.. and I think a bunch of schools will jump ship at the first chance if they don't do something.

If they have a chance to go somewhere better, they will. Its not like P5 invites are being handed out like candy on Halloween. There's nowhere better to go.

I suppose if AAC could get revenue up to $25 million per team or so that defections might no longer be a threat.

ESPiN won't pay that kind of $$$, and they should. If the AAC appears to look elswhere, ESPiN will simply have the ACC (or another conference) raid the conference.....again

(03-13-2015 04:19 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 03:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 02:22 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 11:43 AM)jskwrite Wrote:  I still think the way to go for the AAC is to put their lock on the top non-power conference... I don't see that happening right now.. and I think a bunch of schools will jump ship at the first chance if they don't do something.

If they have a chance to go somewhere better, they will. Its not like P5 invites are being handed out like candy on Halloween. There's nowhere better to go.

I suppose if AAC could get revenue up to $25 million per team or so that defections might no longer be a threat.

ESPiN won't pay that kind of $$$, and they should. If the AAC appears to look elswhere, ESPiN will simply have the ACC (or another conference) raid the conference.....again

The only possible way we could ever get to 25 million a team is if nobody raids us for an extended period of time nd the conference develops attendance and ratings that rival a P5 conference. If that happens---then that means there is either no room in any existing power conference or none of our individual members are worth a full share of a power conference. Either way---there would be no motivation for a P5 to raid the AAC.

My guess is the cap for a well developed non-P5 conference that builds itself into the decent property (say 40K avg attendance in football and ratings that are generally similar to the middle to lower end P5 school ratings) is about half of what the average P5 conference makes. Today---that would be around 10-12 million a team.

(03-11-2015 06:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 07:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why on earth would the B1G want UConn when they already have Rutgers?

I wasn't being serious. But now that you asked ...

1) UConn has basketball (male and female versions). Rutgers does not.
2) UConn adds 10% of the NYC market, which adds to Rutgers' 35% of that market.
3) UConn also has its own top 25 market with (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield).
4) UConn has: a) top level hockey, b) elite soccer, and c) a quality baseball program. I understand the Big 10 is starting to emphasize hockey.
5) In academics, UConn is the #16 public FBS school.
6) In academics, UConn would fit in well per U.S. News:

Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

Uconn, I think you are exaggerating Uconn's share of the NE market outside of Boston. CT?, a piece of NYC? I will give you those, Beyond that, however, you have very little exposure to the other areas of New England. It is BC who is on NESN (New England's primary regional cabal network) not Uconn. Now, I am not suggesting that BC dominates Western MA either, for example. But there will always be a mix of BC, Uconn and UMass competing for those eyeballs. It is not all Uconn by any stretch of the imagination.

(03-13-2015 04:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 07:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I wasn't being serious. But now that you asked ...

1) UConn has basketball (male and female versions). Rutgers does not.
2) UConn adds 10% of the NYC market, which adds to Rutgers' 35% of that market.
3) UConn also has its own top 25 market with (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield).
4) UConn has: a) top level hockey, b) elite soccer, and c) a quality baseball program. I understand the Big 10 is starting to emphasize hockey.
5) In academics, UConn is the #16 public FBS school.
6) In academics, UConn would fit in well per U.S. News:

Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

Uconn, I think you are exaggerating Uconn's share of the NE market outside of Boston. CT?, a piece of NYC? I will give you those, Beyond that, however, you have very little exposure to the other areas of New England. It is BC who is on NESN (New England's primary regional cabal network) not Uconn. Now, I am not suggesting that BC dominates Western MA either, for example. But there will always be a mix of BC, Uconn and UMass competing for those eyeballs. It is not all Uconn by any stretch of the imagination.

I travel a lot for work. I see UConn gear everywhere on the east coast. I never see Rutgers great outside New Jersey. In the Northeast, when it comes to school colors, Syracuse and UConn dominate. That's just one metric though. You still see more Notre Dame stuff up in the Boston area than you see UConn stuff.. OR BC stuff.. so... go figure. When is the last time anyone in here saw someone wearing a Rutgers hat or shirt outside of NJ? Or in NYC for that matter?

(03-13-2015 05:57 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 04:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

Uconn, I think you are exaggerating Uconn's share of the NE market outside of Boston. CT?, a piece of NYC? I will give you those, Beyond that, however, you have very little exposure to the other areas of New England. It is BC who is on NESN (New England's primary regional cabal network) not Uconn. Now, I am not suggesting that BC dominates Western MA either, for example. But there will always be a mix of BC, Uconn and UMass competing for those eyeballs. It is not all Uconn by any stretch of the imagination.

I travel a lot for work. I see UConn gear everywhere on the east coast. I never see Rutgers great outside New Jersey. In the Northeast, when it comes to school colors, Syracuse and UConn dominate. That's just one metric though. You still see more Notre Dame stuff up in the Boston area than you see UConn stuff.. OR BC stuff.. so... go figure. When is the last time anyone in here saw someone wearing a Rutgers hat or shirt outside of NJ? Or in NYC for that matter?

I have lived in midtown Manhattan for over 10 years now. On non-gamedays the FBS clothing that I see people wearing around most often are Rutgers, Penn State, and Buffalo.

(03-13-2015 05:57 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 04:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

Uconn, I think you are exaggerating Uconn's share of the NE market outside of Boston. CT?, a piece of NYC? I will give you those, Beyond that, however, you have very little exposure to the other areas of New England. It is BC who is on NESN (New England's primary regional cabal network) not Uconn. Now, I am not suggesting that BC dominates Western MA either, for example. But there will always be a mix of BC, Uconn and UMass competing for those eyeballs. It is not all Uconn by any stretch of the imagination.

I travel a lot for work. I see UConn gear everywhere on the east coast. I never see Rutgers great outside New Jersey. In the Northeast, when it comes to school colors, Syracuse and UConn dominate. That's just one metric though. You still see more Notre Dame stuff up in the Boston area than you see UConn stuff.. OR BC stuff.. so... go figure. When is the last time anyone in here saw someone wearing a Rutgers hat or shirt outside of NJ? Or in NYC for that matter?

When I'm in Jersey I see more WVU gear than anything else.

(03-13-2015 04:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 07:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I wasn't being serious. But now that you asked ...

1) UConn has basketball (male and female versions). Rutgers does not.
2) UConn adds 10% of the NYC market, which adds to Rutgers' 35% of that market.
3) UConn also has its own top 25 market with (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield).
4) UConn has: a) top level hockey, b) elite soccer, and c) a quality baseball program. I understand the Big 10 is starting to emphasize hockey.
5) In academics, UConn is the #16 public FBS school.
6) In academics, UConn would fit in well per U.S. News:

Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

Uconn, I think you are exaggerating Uconn's share of the NE market outside of Boston. CT?, a piece of NYC? I will give you those, Beyond that, however, you have very little exposure to the other areas of New England. It is BC who is on NESN (New England's primary regional cabal network) not Uconn. Now, I am not suggesting that BC dominates Western MA either, for example. But there will always be a mix of BC, Uconn and UMass competing for those eyeballs. It is not all Uconn by any stretch of the imagination.

you don't get it, no one said you had to be a rRtgers fan and watch Rutgers games. The key is to get the BTN on the cable systems basic tier. Mission accomplished. Whether or not anyone is watching RU football is irrelevant at this point. People are paying for it on basic cable. That was the prize and adding UCONN would not have done that in the NYC DMA and at this point, won't make them much more money.....and by the way, if even no one watched RU (and there are plenty of people who do), there are enough B1G alumni in the area who will watch the network.

(03-13-2015 05:57 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 04:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

Uconn, I think you are exaggerating Uconn's share of the NE market outside of Boston. CT?, a piece of NYC? I will give you those, Beyond that, however, you have very little exposure to the other areas of New England. It is BC who is on NESN (New England's primary regional cabal network) not Uconn. Now, I am not suggesting that BC dominates Western MA either, for example. But there will always be a mix of BC, Uconn and UMass competing for those eyeballs. It is not all Uconn by any stretch of the imagination.

I travel a lot for work. I see UConn gear everywhere on the east coast. I never see Rutgers great outside New Jersey. In the Northeast, when it comes to school colors, Syracuse and UConn dominate. That's just one metric though. You still see more Notre Dame stuff up in the Boston area than you see UConn stuff.. OR BC stuff.. so... go figure. When is the last time anyone in here saw someone wearing a Rutgers hat or shirt outside of NJ? Or in NYC for that matter?

I hear what you are saying, jskwrite, but I think you are demonstrating a classic confirmation bias here. No biggie. We ALL do this. It's part of the human make-up, and advertisers take full advantage of this human quirk.

I am the same way. When I travel up and down the East Coast (which I do constantly in running my business) I see people with BC swag everywhere, just as you see people with Uconn gear. Of course, both of us instantly recognize and remember the occurrences where we ran into people wearing "our colors". The reality, of course, is that there are many more people likewise wearing other school/team colors - or no school stuff at all - that we don't as readily see or, more importantly, remember. They just fade into the background. We may see them in our travels, but we don't have an emotional response like when we see our alma mater represented, so we just forget them. This tends to give us an exaggerated perspective on this whole issue.

(03-13-2015 06:15 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 05:57 PM)jskwrite Wrote:  

(03-13-2015 04:47 PM)Eagle78 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

Uconn, I think you are exaggerating Uconn's share of the NE market outside of Boston. CT?, a piece of NYC? I will give you those, Beyond that, however, you have very little exposure to the other areas of New England. It is BC who is on NESN (New England's primary regional cabal network) not Uconn. Now, I am not suggesting that BC dominates Western MA either, for example. But there will always be a mix of BC, Uconn and UMass competing for those eyeballs. It is not all Uconn by any stretch of the imagination.

I travel a lot for work. I see UConn gear everywhere on the east coast. I never see Rutgers great outside New Jersey. In the Northeast, when it comes to school colors, Syracuse and UConn dominate. That's just one metric though. You still see more Notre Dame stuff up in the Boston area than you see UConn stuff.. OR BC stuff.. so... go figure. When is the last time anyone in here saw someone wearing a Rutgers hat or shirt outside of NJ? Or in NYC for that matter?

I have lived in midtown Manhattan for over 10 years now. On non-gamedays the FBS clothing that I see people wearing around most often are Rutgers, Penn State, and Buffalo.

Why Buffalo? That is surprising.