Thanks for the response.
The Tier3 is for 1 year? Very nice. But in the B1G much of that money -- for local broadcast and marketing rights, for example -- stays with the school. All of the shoe money does. So much of the math still does not work.
Correct. The Marketing/coaches shows/radio broadcasts/apparel contracts stay with the school. The Big 12 proponents say that the tier 3 contracts are similar or even more than the Big10/SEC. They aren't.
The rub, as I see it for UConn, is Rutgers entry into the B1G likely gets "credit" (right or wrong) for the increase in NYC cable market numbers. I don't think UConn can multiply that number by 2 even considering the Harttford DMA. I don't doubt UConn has appeal in Boston, but I do doubt it is enough to move cable system operators.
Hmmmmm . . . UConn doesn't have to multiply by 2. The NYC media market is so large, they have to to add just enough to make it worth the while. That being said, the majority of the monies from the contract won't come from the BTN, it will come from main media package. The Fox/ESPN/ABC monies will dwarf anything the BTW will bring in. Yet, the money isn't the only reason to bring in another NE team. It's also about the exposure in an area where the Big10 schools want to draw general ed students from. Having UConn the Big10 schools plastered all over NYC media while they play UConn basketball is a huge boon for the existing Big10 teams. Rutgers does not register in the winter months and the Big10 schools need a way get their brand in their desired area during basketball season.
Quite frankly, none of us on this board know the metrics for why a school will get admitted into a particular conference. It's more than increasing the BTN cable subscriptions for the Big10.
If it was my call, I would have added UConn to the B1G and not Rutgers. I think the AAU thing was a factor for the presidents. In the minds of the snobbish B1G presidents, I am guessing kNU fall from AAU grace was an embarrassment and took away one of the conference brag lines.
No so sure UNL being a black eye. Michigan and Wisconsin led the charge to get them removed from the AAU. They wanted to have them removed a year before they were admitted into the Big10, but knew they didn't have the votes. If it was a black eye to the Big10 presidents, the punched themselves in the face.
As I said, I admire UConn's basketball program greatly, but the fact it was not invited to the P5 dance in all of this chaos has to tell us something about how conferences do or do not value basketball.
In a more basketball centric world, UConn, KU and Duke would be calling the shots.
There is no certain criteria for what a conference needs. UNL was/is a football king, a national brand that is well known by most casual sports fans. UMD/RU had great markets to be tapped. TAMU was a foothold in Texas and Missouri was entrance in KC/St Louis for the SEC. The ACC additions of Pitt, 'Cuse, and BC were about markets too.
The Big10 needs live programming people will watch during the winter months and teams like UConn can help with that.
I just don't see the B1G getting bigger.
Most think it is moving toward 64 schools in 4 conference with 16. Given the expenses of cost of attendance and the whole Pandora's box in the potential for name rights payments to athletes, I can see some schools dropping out. Those won't be able to justify subsidizing the athletic departments at the new required higher levels. This could end up at 4 conference of 14 for 56 total. Schools like Iowa State and Washington State, for example, might just give up the fight.
I just don't think the 4x16 model is workable and devil is in the details. Getting certain schools to cooperate will be a big challenge. How will that work? I see a couple of ways:
1. Existing conferences. With there being five existing conferences, one will have to be blown up. The most likely candidates would be the ACC and the Big12. The issue is how do you divide them up? If you blow up the ACC, how is the Pac going to acquire schools? They would be forced to stay at 12 while others would have to go to 20. That or they would be forced to take schools that they don't want (UNLV/BYU/Boise St/New Mexico). If you blow up the Big12, how do you break it up? Does OU and UT want to stay together? How do you decide who gets them? Who gets KSU/ISU/Okie St/Baylor/TCU/Tech/WVU?
2. Break up the conferences and reform into more geographical division (NFL model). Seems easy enough, but that goes against what the conferences are trying to do. The schools want exposure in certain places and this really doesn't fit the bill. Who do you let in and who decides who is part of the 64? With ND, someone has to leave and I just don't see anybody wanting to. If the windfall is large enough, no one will leave. If it's not, than why do it?
People want an easy way to make this all nice and neat. It's not, and it would be very difficult to make it that way. Here's a possible way to split up the schools geographically and have some resemblance of tradition with 4x16 (with WF leaving the P5).
West: Washington, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., Stanford, Cal, USC, UCLA, Arizona St., Arizona, Utah, Texas, Baylor, TCU, TTU, Colorado
North: Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St., Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, NW, Wisky, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Iowa St, KSU, OU, Okie ST
South: Texas A&M, Missouri, Arkansas, LSU, Ole' Miss, Miss St., Bama, Auburn, Vandy, Tenn, Kentucky, Georgia, GT, Florida, Miami, FSU
East: S. Carolina, Clemson, Duke, UNC, NCST, UVA, VTU, Louisville, PSU, Pitt, WVU, UMD, Rutgers, 'Cuse, BC, ND
The issue is, will schools like Michigan, Ohio State, and the like lose their NYC link? Will the NE schools want to lose their Florida connections? It just doesn't work well.
No, each conference will do what's best for themselves and make it work in the structure.