Personally, I think conference expansion should be motivated not by markets and television dollars but instead by acquiring brand-name programs that will boost the overall value of the conference. While Rutgers and Maryland certainly provide access to giant television markets neither one really has a storied football history and they don't fit the mold of being midwestern land grants. While their games are available to be viewed by large numbers of people how many are actually tuning in? Something else to consider is the demand for tickets and how much the going rate for tickets are. Rutgers and Maryland don't fill their stadiums (which are small by Big Ten standards) and they can't demand the kind of premiums that programs like Ohio St, Penn St, Michigan, and Nebraska can--these schools can still collect big money for lousy seats against lousy opponents.

I think a conference can justify adding a weaker program if its part of a larger move that brings in a big name (i.e. the ac 12 offering to let in Oklahoma St and Texas Tech in order to get their more illustrious instate rivals). The Big Ten already suffers an image problem due to its perceived lack of depth when it comes to quality football programs and adding two programs that have no history of success does little to remedy that perception. Let's consider the SEC which has established itself as an incredibly deep conference. Prior to the ACC GoR with a matter of a couple phone calls they could have added any of the following schools: Florida St, Clemson, Miami, and Georgia Tech. These schools, while not adding markets, IMHO could have added incredible value to the SEC tv contract because they are all highly regarded programs and by adding more programs with strong football reputations the SEC's inventory would have been augmented with even more games between brand names. (it would also mean that the ACC's tv value would be considerably decreased and thus media outlets would have more money to potentially spend on SEC football and with one less "Power" conference in the mix the impetus to acquire media rights for a big time conference would be much greater.)

St. John's in is the heart of NYC, Rutgers is in the heart of NJ adjacent to NYC.

Walk around NYC and just look at how much college apparel you spot for Rutgers/Syracuse/StJohns.

Syracuse wins and its not even close.

The Big Ten Network contract works out so that they get more money per subscriber in states that have Big Ten schools...and last I checked NYC was in New York (where Syracuse resides) not New Jersey (the home of Rutgers) so reguardless of which was preferred, I don't see how passing up a the extra money from adding a school in NY and 19 million possible subscribers is better than just adding one in NJ with less than 9 million.

When you add that on top of how bad Rutgers sports have been and how great Sryacuse sports have been its not a slam dunk by any means and one could even argue which is was best.

But like Cutter said, Rutger was talking to the Big Ten for year while Sryacuse was not, Rutgers is a state school while Syracuse is private. And like you point out Rutgers is AAU while Syracuse is now not and Rutgers now has a med school while Syracuse does not. Still anyone claiming Rutgers is NYC's program is wrong because I remember reading that their were more Alabama and fans in NYC (and others I can't remember) than Rutgers fans...Rutgers is NJ's program but maybe that changes if they ever do anything in the B1G (which is unlikely seeing how they'll be in a division w/ PSU, Mich, MSU, tOSU and if anything I'd bet that those 4 programs may add more fans in NYC because of Rutgers.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Rutgers is in NYC media market!!!

St.Johns is in the new big east a tiny fraction of what the BE was.


What media market is syracuse in?

Not one of any size.

Certainly the B1G wanted into those metro-coastal areas with state universities. It may not be so much what those two schools deliver on their own, but the new venues provided for the Big Ten.

“the loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room.”

"An argument is not won by the person with the loudest voice, it is won by the person with the most compelling arguments."

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/s ... g-ten.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://espn.go.com/blog/playbook/dollar ... nyc-market" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and my favorite...

http://blog.nj.com/njv_guest_blog/2012/ ... ur_te.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

I wonder if the Big Ten can really enjoy these venues. To an extent, which ones can they claim, other than Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, and maybe Milwaukee? Baltimore they may be able to claim, but never fully DC. They can have the Meadowlands, but they might run into some issues if they try going to Yankee Stadium or out to Queens. They shouldn't try going over to MSG, Brooklyn, or out to Nassau for hoops.

The Big Ten can't fully enjoy Philly, Des Moines, St. Louis, Cleveland...Milwaukee's a risk for hoops...and forget about trying to put a flag down in Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. For a conference that wants to enjoy these great metropolitan areas, they're reach is more inhibited than some may believe.



It's truth. And Syracuse games were usually the ones picked up by WFAN. Army football has more of a claim to NYC than Rutgers.

Rutgers gets them near and slightly into NYC's DMA. But more importantly for the Big Ten, Rutgers gives them a school with a giant student body and a whole new base that is eager to absorb into the Big Ten "lifestyle." But, Rutgers is NJ. Not NY.

Did you know Fox Sports is announcing a new show with 81 y.o. Regis Philbin hosting? Promoters keep emphasizing he is such an avid Notre Dame and Yankees fan. Certain interests have a way of getting their mouthpieces very high exposure.

Army does not outdraw Rutgers in football attendance.

Since I live in the NYC region I am quite familiar with the local sports and Army is hardly ever mentioned.

Rutgers is frequently mentioned.

Also on SNY Rutgers is a frequent topic.

Rutgers is frequently on for bb and football.

OK, what's out there on Big Ten expansion chatter before the fb season really kicks off in another week or so? Really nothing. Could be boredom to post this stuff. Perhaps it's more boring to read it.

Comments (8/7) from Delany on the value of UN, UM, and RU additions. More of the 'focus' commentaries; but again, no definitive statement about future B1G expansion.

http://www.cleveland.com/osu/index.ssf/ ... too_b.html

Question (8/17) about why VPI is scheduling B1G fb opponents. Recently signed a future series with Penn State.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/i ... ilblog-150

And a sorta fun one (7/25) from a blogger about prospects of Texas for the B1G? The comments section may be the best part.

http://kentsterling.com/2013/07/25/texa ... expansion/

It's a legit observation to have to wonder. Schools try to get into certain circles, and scheduling them is how you do it. I think for VT, however, it's because of the east coast clutter in the ACC. They have to start playing games in the midwest, where the footprint now extends.

Here's a good story from David Jones about some of the stories from the 2011-12 PSU seasons to be included in a book. Good lord, that program lost control...

Article out of Quad Cities with comments from Big Ten Commish regarding various topics at http://qctimes.com/sports/college/big-1 ... 9e8de.html

I think you have all lost sight, a bit.

The Big 10 did not pass over Mizzou (STL & KC markets) and add Nebraska for market share.

Mizzou and Nebraska were both AAU. AAU has much more sway with the Big 10 than Market share.

Nebraska is not AAU anymore, and it was known well in advance of them joining the B1G that they were getting voted out of the AAU, in fact Michigan was one of the schools leading the charge to kick them out.

If AAU was everything Nebraska would still be in the Big12 and Mizzou would be in the B1G.

There is email evidence that the B1G was considering adding Oklahoma (just got Tier1 status a year ago and not even close to AAU) so saying its all about AAU is wrong.

AAU and all around academics are just a few of the factors to consider in expansion along with markets, market penetration, and athletics.

You take schools like Nebraska and Oklahoma for the athletics and market penetration (general interest of the country and ability to pull TV ratings/eyeballs) not for their non AAU Tier 1 status or tiny markets.

And you take a school like Maryland or Rutgers for the near opposite reasons...large markets and academics...not really athletics or penetration.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...

Defensive much?

Read my post again. I never said AAU was the only consideration. I said AAU was more important to the Big 10 than Market Share.

I also did not say Nebraska was still in the AAU, I clearly said that they both "were" in the AAU.

I don't understand the need to control the conversation. I am an educated man and I thought I had something to add to the conversation.

I'm not sure how that post was defensive, but I'll bite.

You said "I think you have all lost sight, a bit" and your entire point was that "AAU has much more sway with the Big 10 than Market share."

That's a fine view point to have, but as Delaney has stated the opposite and there is clearly evidence of the Big Ten considering expansion with non-AAU schools like Oklahoma, Boston College, and Notre Dame; it is simply wrong, whether it be ill-informed or just stubborn.

One of your first 5 posts on this board kicks off by claiming that the other posters on this board have all "lost sight" a proceed to explain to us how we are wrong and you are right. I don't know how they do it in Germany but its not proper etiquette to walk into a room of people you don't know and have never met and explain to them why they have "lost sight."

Regardless, the other patrons of this board and I would be doing you a disservice by not filling you in on the near 1800 posts which one would assume (and please correct me if I'm wrong) you have not read, and quickly summarize the current train of thought backed up by empirical evidence held in the last 120 or so pages.

That is a dialog, you can feel free to once again disagree and post your thoughts or ask more clarifying questions in hope of better educating yourself to a train of thought that most of the sports world is ignorant to, or if you do not feel like participating you can agree to disagree or simply not reply.

Now if there is something I said in the above statement (which was written without any animosity toward your previous post) feel free to identify and address it specifically where as I can apologize or explain, but please refrain from the normal message board bickering where as you play the victimized "educated man" just trying to add his two cents while uniformly maligning my post as a "need to control the conversation" as that sort of tactic does not facilitate the growth of quality dialog and in fact just acts as a way to alienate and divide.

Now all that being said...welcome to the board.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...