NYTimes article (previously posted in another thread)discussing Big Ten footprint expansion into eastern tv markets at
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/01/busin ... .html?_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;"
That's an informative posting, Freaked.
Interesting how Delany describes the B1G footprint now. It's a good promotion piece, but no referencing the period exposed by the 'UNC Emails' following the acquisition of Maryland. Of course, that would detract from the article's beginning theme that the B1G's expansion was a reactionary move.
It was stated the B1G attributed their expansion with Maryland and Rutgers as a response to the SEC taking Mizzou, and the ACC adding Pitt and Notre Dame (but remaining fb independent). The ACC part has been heard before. It was not noted, though, the B1G had passed on those same schools or an all-sports or specal deaL with ND got declined.
The article elaborated on the two added schools, Maryland and Rutgers, having serious financial issues. One of the best quotes: “It’s a coup,” said Tim Pernetti, the former Rutgers athletic director, who negotiated the Rutgers move to the Big Ten. “No one did better in conference realignment than Rutgers.” Well, maybe the Maryland thing was sort of a 'coup', but Rutgers is dang lucky.
Delany deserves much credit with the innovation and success of the BTN as well as other negotiations. As to expansion choices, his biggest challenge was selling selections to all the B1G Presidents. There's the Gordon Gee quote. But no missed opportunities speak.
If the B1G is going to expand again anytime soon, it looks like it would be near the time of "reset the bar" for 2017 TV negotiations. That is not a real long time away, really. Does Delany intend to deliver purely what has already been obtained for the new package; or will he expand the conference's membership to attract an offer from the network that exceeds the costs for expansion and enhance the distributions for all member schools? With the GoR's in place elsewhere, the former currently looks more realistic.