Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
Yes and yes. The additions were made to “break into those markets”. Since Maryland and Rutgers don’t have much penetration into those markets, it never panned out as they’d hoped. It was a huge risk and it didn’t work out. If they could go back they’d do it differently but they are now stuck with those teams, probably forever.
The B10 has placed some other pretty big bets recently however, and those have or are projected to pan out very nicely. They are in the drivers seat as the premier conference for the north and west portions of the country. None of that has anything to do with Rutgers and Maryland though.
I agree..Rutgers and Maryland did not make the B10 better, but they didn't hurt all that much either.
They wanted the LA market they got that. Neither school is as good as the top football schools. UCLA helps with basketball but the key is "potential" tv viewers.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bisonaudit
I don’t think that the problem with Maryland is that they lack market penetration. They’re a great basketball school with a strong fan base in a major metropolitan area. The problem is their football program is not good. If it were down to them or the Gophers if you threw out the historical conference associations you’d take Maryland. The Rutgers thing I didn’t understand.
Never in a million years would the B10 pick Maryland over Minnesota though. All of the cohesiveness, stability and familiarity that comes with historical affiliation is the backbone of athletic conferences.
I’m not too familiar with the B10 east, but to my knowledge there is 0 excitement for schools in playing Maryland almost a decade after they’ve been in the conference. They were a square peg in a round hole.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MWC
I agree..Rutgers and Maryland did not make the B10 better, but they didn't hurt all that much either.
They wanted the LA market they got that. Neither school is as good as the top football schools. UCLA helps with basketball but the key is "potential" tv viewers.
I guess that’s my point. Look at the move they made with USC/UCLA and compare it with Rutgers/Maryland.
Massive fan bases in multiple sports, grows them into additional time-zones, broadens the allure of nationally televised games. On top of all of that, brand recognition. UCLA and USC have been irrelevant in football for a decade and I’ll still tune in and watch them play.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
I guess that’s my point. Look at the move they made with USC/UCLA and compare it with Rutgers/Maryland.
Massive fan bases in multiple sports, grows them into additional time-zones, broadens the allure of nationally televised games. On top of all of that, brand recognition. UCLA and USC have been irrelevant in football for a decade and I’ll still tune in and watch them play.
Off topic a bit but still kind of cool.
The Memorial Coliseum opened in 1923. USC played a school that no longer plays football in the first game. To celebrate the 100 year anniversary, USC will be playing the school that played the second game: The University of Nevada.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
I guess that’s my point. Look at the move they made with USC/UCLA and compare it with Rutgers/Maryland.
Massive fan bases in multiple sports, grows them into additional time-zones, broadens the allure of nationally televised games. On top of all of that, brand recognition. UCLA and USC have been irrelevant in football for a decade and I’ll still tune in and watch them play.
Before Rutgers and Maryland were in the B1G, local cable companies in NYC, DC, and Baltimore did not carry the network. Adding those 2 schools are a ton of rights revenue in 3 major markets. B1G schools have decent alumni presence in those markets as well. I doubt they have any regrets making that move.
Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
Yes and yes. The additions were made to “break into those markets”. Since Maryland and Rutgers don’t have much penetration into those markets, it never panned out as they’d hoped. It was a huge risk and it didn’t work out. If they could go back they’d do it differently but they are now stuck with those teams, probably forever.
The B10 has placed some other pretty big bets recently however, and those have or are projected to pan out very nicely. They are in the drivers seat as the premier conference for the north and west portions of the country. None of that has anything to do with Rutgers and Maryland though.
What exactly was it that didn't work out?
It was never about the athletic abilities of the schools and no one really pretended it was (though Maryland basketball is a solid brand). Both are excellent academic and research universities which is a huge deal in the B1G. Both allowed them to expand into new TV markets, immediately adding about 8 million subscribers to the B1G Network. Considering the monthly fee is right around $0.50/month (if not higher on the east coast), that was nearly $50 million/year just in B1G Network subscriber fees annually.
Based on how the pocketbooks of the member schools have faired, I'm not sure what they would do differently. I'm in no way attributing all of this growth to the addition of two new schools, but to pretend it wasn't a factor in the increase of the value of the media payouts is flat-out wrong.
-The B1G media payouts were $26 million in 2013.
-In 2017, they signed a football only contract $31.4 million per school.
-By 2018, the full share payout was $52 million had doubled to $52 million and continues to exceed that.
-On top of that, Rutgers and Maryland didn't even get full shares until 2020/21
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
abc123
What exactly was it that didn't work out?
It was never about the athletic abilities of the schools and no one really pretended it was (though Maryland basketball is a solid brand). Both are excellent academic and research universities which is a huge deal in the B1G. Both allowed them to expand into new TV markets, immediately adding about 8 million subscribers to the B1G Network. Considering the monthly fee is right around $0.50/month (if not higher on the east coast), that was nearly $50 million/year just in B1G Network subscriber fees annually.
Based on how the pocketbooks of the member schools have faired, I'm not sure what they would do differently. I'm in no way attributing all of this growth to the addition of two new schools, but to pretend it wasn't a factor in the increase of the value of the media payouts is flat-out wrong.
-The B1G media payouts were $26 million in 2013.
-In 2017, they signed a football only contract $31.4 million per school.
-By 2018, the full share payout was $52 million had doubled to $52 million and continues to exceed that.
-On top of that, Rutgers and Maryland didn't even get full shares until 2020/21
Ask the conference commissioner. Who, when asked, said that mistakes were made and they may have gotten a little too optimistic about what it would do for the conference.
It would take $1M and a professional services agreement for me (or anyone) to take the time to divvy up what part of the increase came from where. TV payouts for all sports at all levels have been growing on an order at least comparable to what you listed.
By your own math they’re losing out then. $50M increase total divided by two schools compared to a $52M payout per school.
$50M in, $104M paid out.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
When I hear BIG and mistakes were made I just assume they’re talking about Nebraska.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
bisonaudit
When I hear BIG and mistakes were made I just assume they’re talking about Nebraska.
Me too. All the cons of MD/RU without the TV subscriptions.
Re: A new and better FBS thread
Quote:
Originally Posted by
NDSU92
Ask the conference commissioner. Who, when asked, said that mistakes were made and they may have gotten a little too optimistic about what it would do for the conference.
It would take $1M and a professional services agreement for me (or anyone) to take the time to divvy up what part of the increase came from where. TV payouts for all sports at all levels have been growing on an order at least comparable to what you listed.
By your own math they’re losing out then. $50M increase total divided by two schools compared to a $52M payout per school.
$50M in, $104M paid out.
The $50M I estimated was strictly in B1G subscription fees. And only counts what they estimated was immediately added.
That ignores literally everything else. Including that per school payouts has doubled since then. How are the other conferences doing in comparison?
I'd love to see where the conference commissioner, on record, said that letting those two schools in was a mistake.
