- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 1/5/10 at 9:50 am to SprintFun
quote:
Part of the major sticking point between Big10 network and cable networks is that the Big10 Network wanted to charge $1 per cable subscriber in Big10 states, while in non Big10 states they wanted $0.10 per sub. I'm not sure what the final contract is, or how it handles adding a new state, but you bet your arse they'll get more money from the cable company in a new state and more advertising revenues.
yeah I get that and part of that was the "newness" of the network
but as the cable providers continue to update and expand their systems they will keep adding channels and the BTN will fall into line just like every other channel did
the factor of a new school adding the BTN to a cable provider is a VERY short term conditionl. Adding a new school to the Conference is a long range commitment and has much bigger ramifications than a simple TV network availability
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:12 am to specs1
quote:
FACT:
specs1 is a miserable douche and an idiot.
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:16 am to specs1
Lucky to get Boise. 
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:19 am to BuckeyeFan87
If they took UT, the Big 12 would be a joke
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:20 am to Baloo
quote:
Texas would bring in revenue, but add too many expenses so its no longer worth it. I just don’t think it is viable.
It does seem like a longshot, but look how spread out CUSA is or the WAC and MWC, I don't think the travel would that big of a sticking point. If CUSA can manage the travel from Marshall to UTEP, the MW to Austin is doable. Before joining the Big 12, Texas looked seriously at the Pac-10.
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:22 am to barry
quote:
If they took UT, the Big 12 would be a joke
True... just like the PAC USC+9 it will become the BIG OU & Nebraska + a few
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:32 am to mylsuhat
quote:
BIG OU & Nebraska + a few
aka the Big 8 or Big 2 and little 6 back in the day
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:36 am to SprintFun
quote:
They'd own the shite out of Big10 baseball
Would Texas get a hockey team if they merged?
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:39 am to specs1
quote:
BSU has become a traditional power.
You must have a different definition of "traditional" than what the rest of us use.
Posted on 1/5/10 at 10:44 am to LSUintheNW
quote:
Would Texas get a hockey team if they merged?
Hockey isn't a Big10 sport
Posted on 1/5/10 at 11:02 am to Muahahaha
Couple thoughts:
Recently all the articles I've read have shown the SEC to be making more money than the Big 10... so from the start the article struck me as being written from a Big 10 bias that would not appreciate other perspectives... even when they may be written in black and white
Pittsburgh makes a lot of sense to the Big 10 as the author mentioned and while they wouldn't be a publicity bonanza they would offer something and the author seems to overlook the likelihood that Pitt fans in the area are likely not fans of PSU for example (so his comment along the lines of "big 10 gains little or nothing as far as regional or national interest" is an over-statement at least IMO)
Missouri makes sense too... I took it from the blog that the guy writing it was an Illinois fan more than anything. One particular comment he made struck me as fairly wrong though... especially his idea that Illinois and Missouri split the Saint Louis market for college football. Having spent part of my childhood in Saint Louis I can tell you they really don't. Largely the city is indifferent to college football or if they are interested they passively turn in to watch big name teams rather than root for the somewhat local teams of Missouri (and to a much lesser extent Illinois). This is for several reasons... saint louis is mostly a baseball town... there is no major football university all that close to the city and the closest couple of "major" programs (if MU or Illini can be counted as major) pretty regularly sucked over the last few decades.
Nebraska would make a lot of sense for the Big 10 and I think the author sold well short the national media attention that they would generate. While Nebraska is a largely small and in some ways unimportant state, the football reputation of the University on a national scale probably exceeds any institution not named Notre Dame.
Texas is a worse fit than the author seems to think. The money would be appealing I think and the idea is creative but it turns the Big 10 into the PAC 10 east with a huge geographic distance between schools. If I were a Texas fan I would say no to the idea because they already have plenty of resources and they give up a lot for some money and a lot of disadvantages. Suddenly every conference trip is a serious haul instead of having a lot of easy travel dates. Their team will constantly practice in good weather designed to highlight their team speeed and athleticism and then play all of their late season road games in colder weather with slush and mud... good for neither their players nor their fans who presently enjoy traveling. Their baseball program would be completely screwed with the crap weather and while it probably doesn't occur to a Big 10 fan baseball is indeed a major sport of serious interest to them (yes, they win championships in that too)
Recently all the articles I've read have shown the SEC to be making more money than the Big 10... so from the start the article struck me as being written from a Big 10 bias that would not appreciate other perspectives... even when they may be written in black and white
Pittsburgh makes a lot of sense to the Big 10 as the author mentioned and while they wouldn't be a publicity bonanza they would offer something and the author seems to overlook the likelihood that Pitt fans in the area are likely not fans of PSU for example (so his comment along the lines of "big 10 gains little or nothing as far as regional or national interest" is an over-statement at least IMO)
Missouri makes sense too... I took it from the blog that the guy writing it was an Illinois fan more than anything. One particular comment he made struck me as fairly wrong though... especially his idea that Illinois and Missouri split the Saint Louis market for college football. Having spent part of my childhood in Saint Louis I can tell you they really don't. Largely the city is indifferent to college football or if they are interested they passively turn in to watch big name teams rather than root for the somewhat local teams of Missouri (and to a much lesser extent Illinois). This is for several reasons... saint louis is mostly a baseball town... there is no major football university all that close to the city and the closest couple of "major" programs (if MU or Illini can be counted as major) pretty regularly sucked over the last few decades.
Nebraska would make a lot of sense for the Big 10 and I think the author sold well short the national media attention that they would generate. While Nebraska is a largely small and in some ways unimportant state, the football reputation of the University on a national scale probably exceeds any institution not named Notre Dame.
Texas is a worse fit than the author seems to think. The money would be appealing I think and the idea is creative but it turns the Big 10 into the PAC 10 east with a huge geographic distance between schools. If I were a Texas fan I would say no to the idea because they already have plenty of resources and they give up a lot for some money and a lot of disadvantages. Suddenly every conference trip is a serious haul instead of having a lot of easy travel dates. Their team will constantly practice in good weather designed to highlight their team speeed and athleticism and then play all of their late season road games in colder weather with slush and mud... good for neither their players nor their fans who presently enjoy traveling. Their baseball program would be completely screwed with the crap weather and while it probably doesn't occur to a Big 10 fan baseball is indeed a major sport of serious interest to them (yes, they win championships in that too)
Posted on 1/5/10 at 12:18 pm to molsusports
The big ten won't expand unless it's going to increase the pie. Pitt does not make the pie big enough. In fact you can argue that each big ten team would take in less money having to split with Pitt since they don't sell out their stadium and they don't add any new markets and ABC/ESPN and CBS won't give the big ten that much more money in their football and basketball contracts because they added Pittsburg.
Nebraska doesn't make the pie big enough. Yes they do have national name recognition, but they do not have a national following like Notre Dame. Penn State has more fans than Nebraska and has bigger markets. Mizzou won't make the pie big enough. The presidents of the big ten have to be convinced that adding schools means more money for everyone via tv deals and a championship game.
The standard is Penn State. Penn State meant more money for everyone without question and new markets without question.
I think the big ten makes an offer for both Texas and Texas A&M and maybe then an Eastern school like Pitt. This wont' be a one more teach it'll be a package of teams. And then look for the NCAA to push baseball back a month.
Nebraska doesn't make the pie big enough. Yes they do have national name recognition, but they do not have a national following like Notre Dame. Penn State has more fans than Nebraska and has bigger markets. Mizzou won't make the pie big enough. The presidents of the big ten have to be convinced that adding schools means more money for everyone via tv deals and a championship game.
The standard is Penn State. Penn State meant more money for everyone without question and new markets without question.
I think the big ten makes an offer for both Texas and Texas A&M and maybe then an Eastern school like Pitt. This wont' be a one more teach it'll be a package of teams. And then look for the NCAA to push baseball back a month.
Posted on 1/5/10 at 12:29 pm to SprintFun
I think Nebraska would be a great fit for the Big Ten? Is the Big Ten strongly considering Nebraska? I'd take them over Missouri.
Posted on 1/5/10 at 12:37 pm to specs1
quote:
Not going to get Notre Dame
Don't want them anymore.
Posted on 1/5/10 at 12:37 pm to tiger perry
Texas is a state school,, I don't see the Legislature letting them leave the big 12 and abandoning a&m tech,, and Baylor still has some sway in the state
it weakens the other state schools,,puts the BIG 12 in jeopardy,, after the demise of the swc I cant see the leg. letting it happen again
it weakens the other state schools,,puts the BIG 12 in jeopardy,, after the demise of the swc I cant see the leg. letting it happen again
Posted on 1/5/10 at 12:37 pm to Muahahaha
quote:
for the conference, which is the nation’s oldest and wealthiest
Is this accurate?
Posted on 1/5/10 at 12:38 pm to Muahahaha
quote:
Don't want them anymore.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Posted on 1/5/10 at 1:01 pm to martiansgohome
Biggest problem with UT to the B11 is the massive disadvantage this puts the UT sports teams at on road games.
Lets just look at football for a moment. The majority of UTs road games are either bus trips or very short plane rides. While the players don't get to sleep in their own beds the night before a game, they certainly aren't suffering from jet lag either.
It is far more difficult on the players to to go play at Michigan than at Okie State (assuming the 2 had comparable football teams at the time).
Yes UT has to go to Nebraska and Missouri from time to time, but most of their road games are in the states of Texas or Oklahoma.
Why would any Athletic Dept sign off on putting their players at a disadvantage ? Just makes no sense to me.
Lets just look at football for a moment. The majority of UTs road games are either bus trips or very short plane rides. While the players don't get to sleep in their own beds the night before a game, they certainly aren't suffering from jet lag either.
It is far more difficult on the players to to go play at Michigan than at Okie State (assuming the 2 had comparable football teams at the time).
Yes UT has to go to Nebraska and Missouri from time to time, but most of their road games are in the states of Texas or Oklahoma.
Why would any Athletic Dept sign off on putting their players at a disadvantage ? Just makes no sense to me.
Posted on 1/5/10 at 1:16 pm to jcole4lsu
quote:
Why would any Athletic Dept sign off on putting their players at a disadvantage
$$$$$$
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News