(06-06-2016 06:58 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-06-2016 06:39 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Rutgers wasn't winning very much of anything, even in the AAC, and now makes $30+M for one reason and one reason only. Market.

I'm not surprised someone picked up this Gator Troll piece...as the dude was just upset he had to spend a week in Dallas, even though everyone told him "don't go, nothing will happen."

Maryland has 1 conf football title in 30 years...yet they were invited to join the Big Ten with Rutgers (futility of a historic football program), all because of their TV MArkets and had nothing to do with "winning".

Troll writer is/was just clueless...upset that he had to eat at McDonald's for 5 straight days.

Heck, the troll should just look at his own school...that didn't win a conf title for 70 years...yet that was good enough to be "given" the gift of a BCS/P5 membership.

I think winning means more for teams on the outside looking in like TCU, Utah, & Louisville (although UL was in a Power conference since '04) but Rutgers and Maryland had been part of the 'power structure' for quite some time. Maryland also has a rich b-ball tradition & Rutgers claimed the NY market. Both Maryland and Rutgers represented opportunities for the B1G to grab east coast viewership without resorting to 'lowering themselves' by dipping into the non-power pool.

The AAC owns it's own digital rights and that can be a bargaining tool next go round with ESPN.

(06-06-2016 08:00 AM)Indiana Bones Wrote:  

(06-06-2016 06:58 AM)KnightLight Wrote:  

(06-06-2016 06:39 AM)Carolina Stang Wrote:  Rutgers wasn't winning very much of anything, even in the AAC, and now makes $30+M for one reason and one reason only. Market.

I'm not surprised someone picked up this Gator Troll piece...as the dude was just upset he had to spend a week in Dallas, even though everyone told him "don't go, nothing will happen."

Maryland has 1 conf football title in 30 years...yet they were invited to join the Big Ten with Rutgers (futility of a historic football program), all because of their TV MArkets and had nothing to do with "winning".

Troll writer is/was just clueless...upset that he had to eat at McDonald's for 5 straight days.

Heck, the troll should just look at his own school...that didn't win a conf title for 70 years...yet that was good enough to be "given" the gift of a BCS/P5 membership.

I think winning means more for teams on the outside looking in like TCU, Utah, & Louisville (although UL was in a Power conference since '04) but Rutgers and Maryland had been part of the 'power structure' for quite some time. Maryland also has a rich b-ball tradition & Rutgers claimed the NY market. Both Maryland and Rutgers represented opportunities for the B1G to grab east coast viewership without resorting to 'lowering themselves' by dipping into the non-power pool.

I think every situation is different.

Rutgers and Maryland weren't selected for their outstanding football. Those were obvious market grabs for the B10N.

Syracuse looks more like a basketball and geographic/culture/rival pick for the ACC. Maybe the same for Pitt.

A&M and Missouri were location, and A&M at least, football, for the SEC.

I think with the Big 12, with a network no longer on the table, athletic performance and location are the 2 big factors. Boren and Bowlsby made it clear that current Big 12 fans don't want to see bad games in either sport.

I think the OP is a bit off here. Winning has some to do with it... DEPENDING on which conference you want to join. There are a multitude of reasons expansion happens and they are all different depending on which conference, so making blanket statements just doesnt work.

1. What is best for ESPN. I tend to think this is the most overlooked reason. Never forget who the puppet master is.

2. Academics. Lets be REAL honest. Teams like Rutgers, Maryland, and Colorado got in because they were either AAU with large markets (for the Big 10... and they didnt care about how much they won) or that they were in a new market geographically close and were a research powerhouse (the Pac 12). The Big 10 has never added a school that wasnt AAU and the Pac 12 shares research, and all members are heavy research based schools... this is why teams like Boise, BYU and others will never get an invite.
The ACC is similar and they do share some research.... and they pretend to be academic snobs, but in a pinch they dropped their standards a bit and took Lville. Given, I think US News rankings are complete BS, but before they added Lville, FSU was the lowest ranked at 99th. They could have gotten WVU but they just couldnt hold their nose hard enough to add them.

3. The Big 12 is TOTALLY different than any other conference. Winning and national prestige is actually very important. With teams like ISU its kinda shocking but where they make their money is that they get alot of high profile games that people actually watch. The Big 10 wants markets and academics... because they have a network. The big 12 doesnt have one. Their income stucture is predicated on a simple formula of having content that people watch. I actually kinda respect them because many of these conference networks are based on getting into a market and forcing everyone who has cable to pay for their channel whether or not anyone is watching it. (see rutgers, maryland)

4. The SEC doesnt care a bit about academics.... they dont really care as much about market (or ncaa rules) but with the addition of a network, even that has changed. Fun fact, the SEC is the only conference that does not have any rules in place to keep teams from leaving. All you have to do is give notice. You know you are badass when you dont even have to worry.

The point is, expansion and conference realignment is way more complex than just simple blanket statements. There is a culture to each conference and even though certain teams seem like they would be a good fit, they very well may get denied for non football (winning) reasons. Boise is probably the most deserving team based upon on field performance but since they are a research graveyard, with a non existent market it basically eliminates 4 of the P5. their only chance would be somone like the Big 12 but its a hell of a long flight to nowhere and i dont see it ever happening.

For now, we are stuck with each other and I am ok with that. The money will go up in 2019... probably sooner since I think ESPN will want to lock us in without competition and after living through what happens when you tell ESPN no, I hope we negotiate hard and then take what they offer.... cause when they come a calling they do so without Lube.

(06-06-2016 08:40 AM)Pirate1 Wrote:  The AAC owns it's own digital rights and that can be a bargaining tool next go round with ESPN.

It can.... but I hope we reserve some of our own. Id like to see if we can keep 1 football game each and some bball, along with any non televised sports. Several schools could work out their own Tier 3 deals and make decent money.
We have a channel here in middle of Florida that is losing alot of content since the SEC and ACC will be retaining their third tier rights. USF and UCF could make a package deal to them and add some profit to our bottom line. With almost a half million alumi here in the #11 and #19 DMA, I wouldnt doubt we could both get an extra million.... and schools like Houston and SMU, or UConn/Temple could do the same.

Also, our last tv contract did not include Navy. Their TV deal I believe is with CBS for another year or two. In the next contract, we get to have them as a negotiation piece also..... this is why I hope we attempt to expand.
Adding in Air Force and CSU would expand our footprint and give us some interesting games..... and I think deals can be worked out where we play BYU and Army more often. Some type of scheduling agreement would give us quality content without huge added expense.

(06-06-2016 06:58 AM)Pirate1 Wrote:  The trend to cord cut is changing the dynamics of markets and what makes sense to expand. Actual fans that will pay for your programming will be more valuable than just getting on the basic cable package in a city or state and prying $5 a month from everyone that lives there.

How? It's just another way to watch a game. Streaming doesn't all of a sudden mean that Slippery Rock has more potential viewers than Texas.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk