|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 10, 2023 8:51:32 GMT -8
and then both lose. They suck. Not sure why these conferences think they are positive adds to their membership. Viewers and easy wins Not viewers. Cal had more TV viewers last year than OSU but not WSU. ASU was significantly lower than both. Of the programs leaving for the Big 12, three (ASU, UA and Colorado) had a lower TV viewership than WSU and OSU. OSU nearly doubles Colorado and does double ASU. And just to throw in another, OSU doubles SMU. Is there potential for some of these schools to boost viewership? Sure. But you could say the same for OSU and WSU if they were heading to a Power 5 conference. Colorado is no doubt going to do it this year without even being in the Big 12, but they're also an outlier because of coach Prime, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave86 on Sept 10, 2023 9:27:19 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 10, 2023 9:37:18 GMT -8
Yeah, saw the tape. IMO, he is speaking for all coaches and athletes at both schools. They DO NOT want to play in the MWC. Not to mention it would not be competitive at all for the current football teams at OSU and WSU. They would roll through the conference. Such a huge drop for the schools if it happens. |
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Sept 10, 2023 10:08:56 GMT -8
Good for Jake. Shaking is fist at the clouds, because on-field performance has absolutely nothing to do with any of the expansion decisions by the Big Ten or Big 12.
|
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 10, 2023 10:19:31 GMT -8
Good for Jake. Shaking is fist at the clouds, because on-field performance has absolutely nothing to do with any of the expansion decisions by the Big Ten or Big 12. I think it did/does with the Big Ten and the SEC. Not the Big 12 and ACC. I think branding and revenue potential are bigger factors for the Big Ten and SEC but they definitely want schools with strong programs. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 10, 2023 11:04:15 GMT -8
Good for Jake. Shaking is fist at the clouds, because on-field performance has absolutely nothing to do with any of the expansion decisions by the Big Ten or Big 12. I think it did/does with the Big Ten and the SEC. Not the Big 12 and ACC. I think branding and revenue potential are bigger factors for the Big Ten and SEC but they definitely want schools with strong programs. You really think adding a great program is even remotely equal to adding TV markets? The B10 is full of crap teams. That conference, or any other adding teams, is not looking at how good the football team is... or it's recent history. They care about the potential TV $ they can bring. As far as Oregon, it's not the truly the brand wanted. It's all about Nike. The B10 is bringing Nike in. Oregon could have been 5-7 the last 4 seasons and were getting invited. LA, Seattle media markets and Nike. Pretty easy to see why they were added. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 10, 2023 11:26:12 GMT -8
I think it did/does with the Big Ten and the SEC. Not the Big 12 and ACC. I think branding and revenue potential are bigger factors for the Big Ten and SEC but they definitely want schools with strong programs. You really think adding a great program is even remotely equal to adding TV markets? The B10 is full of crap teams. That conference, or any other adding teams, is not looking at how good the football team is... or it's recent history. They care about the potential TV $ they can bring. As far as Oregon, it's not the truly the brand wanted. It's all about Nike. The B10 is bringing Nike in. Oregon could have been 5-7 the last 4 seasons and were getting invited. LA, Seattle media markets and Nike. Pretty easy to see why they were added. Sigh. Your post is not really contradicting anything I said. Again: " I think branding and revenue potential are bigger factors for the Big Ten and SEC but they definitely want schools with strong programs." As far as the Big Ten being full of crap teams...maybe. But we're talking about what the conference is looking for in expansion in the current time frame. |
|
|
|
Post by rgeorge on Sept 10, 2023 12:13:11 GMT -8
You really think adding a great program is even remotely equal to adding TV markets? The B10 is full of crap teams. That conference, or any other adding teams, is not looking at how good the football team is... or it's recent history. They care about the potential TV $ they can bring. As far as Oregon, it's not the truly the brand wanted. It's all about Nike. The B10 is bringing Nike in. Oregon could have been 5-7 the last 4 seasons and were getting invited. LA, Seattle media markets and Nike. Pretty easy to see why they were added. Sigh. Your post is not really contradicting anything I said. Again: " I think branding and revenue potential are bigger factors for the Big Ten and SEC but they definitely want schools with strong programs." As far as the Big Ten being full of crap teams...maybe. But we're talking about what the conference is looking for in expansion in the current time frame. Conferences... B12, ACC, etc... how good your football team isn't the relevant reason to consider adding teams. |
|
|
|
Post by korculabeav on Sept 10, 2023 12:15:03 GMT -8
You really think adding a great program is even remotely equal to adding TV markets? The B10 is full of crap teams. That conference, or any other adding teams, is not looking at how good the football team is... or its recent history. They care about the potential TV $ they can bring. As far as Oregon, it's not the truly the brand wanted. It's all about Nike. The B10 is bringing Nike in. Oregon could have been 5-7 the last 4 seasons and were getting invited. LA, Seattle media markets and Nike. Pretty easy to see why they were added. Sigh. Your post is not really contradicting anything I said. Again: " I think branding and revenue potential are bigger factors for the Big Ten and SEC but they definitely want schools with strong programs." As far as the Big Ten being full of crap teams...maybe. But we're talking about what the conference is looking for in expansion in the current time frame. examples of subpar or inconsistent football programs in the B1G: Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, Minnesota. |
|
|
|
Post by korculabeav on Sept 10, 2023 12:15:38 GMT -8
Sigh. Your post is not really contradicting anything I said. Again: " I think branding and revenue potential are bigger factors for the Big Ten and SEC but they definitely want schools with strong programs." As far as the Big Ten being full of crap teams...maybe. But we're talking about what the conference is looking for in expansion in the current time frame. Conferences... B12, ACC, etc... how good your football team isn't the relevant reason to consider adding teams. That is largely an unfortunate truth. |
|
|
|
Post by grayman on Sept 10, 2023 12:46:58 GMT -8
Sigh. Your post is not really contradicting anything I said. Again: " I think branding and revenue potential are bigger factors for the Big Ten and SEC but they definitely want schools with strong programs." As far as the Big Ten being full of crap teams...maybe. But we're talking about what the conference is looking for in expansion in the current time frame. examples of subpar or inconsistent football programs in the B1G: Rutgers, Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland, Purdue, Minnesota. Again, I'm not arguing that they would take "weaker" programs if they see an advantage that could bring in money. Since 1990, the Big Ten has added Penn State, Nebraska, Rutgers, Maryland, USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington (we're talking about expansion. That eliminates the relevance of Northwestern, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue and Minnesota in this discussion. Plus, all conferences have weaker programs.) So the outliers are Maryland and Rutgers. Why would the Big Ten take those schools? Here's a quote from an article in The Atlantic: "While the fan intensity for Rutgers and Maryland paled when compared with Penn State or Nebraska, the volume of Big Ten fans in the northeast enabled BTN to command immediate market penetration. And revenue skyrocketed." They didn't go for Rutgers and Maryland for anything those schools offered. Not branding, not program success, not the tv viewership those schools had. That scenario is not really comparable to anything that has happened in the last couple of years. Maybe to a small degree with the Big 12 adding the four Pac-12 schools but Rutgers and Maryland aren't comparable to Utah (established football success, TV market and viewership), or the main reasons the Big 12 took Arizona (basketball success) or even Colorado (previous Big 12 membership). So really, ASU is the lucky school that gets in, mostly because of location near the Big 12 footprint. Yeah, ASU is basically in Phoenix but football and basketball do not move the needle at all as far as TV numbers. |
|
