Go Back   Fighting Illini Forums > Sports > Fighting Illini Football

Conference Realignment Thread (Maryland & Rutgers join the Big Ten conference)

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:15 AM   #976
Sure Shot
Banned
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonIllini View Post
Would you prefer us being at 12 teams or 10 and sitting on the outside while other mega conferences get BCS bids, big bowl games and all the young HS talent heads in that direction? What fun would playing OSU be if the B1G were a MAC caliber conference?

Would you prefer to have to subsidize our athletic department from our abjectly bankrupt state? Or from our academic pocket book? Is the annual OSU game worth us reducing the number of athletic teams we can support? Is it worth not being able to see our teams on television because the networks have gravitated to showing more 'important' conferences?

To me the answer to all these questions is a resounding no. That doesn't mean that I or anyone wants 16-20 teams. It means that we could not survive with 10 so we had to adapt.

In a world of dog eat dog, my personality is that I would always prefer to be the predator than the prey. Given that, I feel the B1G has done a wonderful job to date.

I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that expansion makes us stronger.

There is this idea that the tradition and nostalgia of the Big Ten is just something to be discarded in wake of cold-hearted capitalism. That's an easy storyline, and it rings true because that's how the game works just about everywhere in our lives.

But I continue to believe that it's that wistful nostalgia that IS the monetizable property that makes the Big Ten a financial powerhouse above and beyond its ability on the field. Treating the Big Ten as an a la carte association of individual brands just totally misunderstands what has made us rich and powerful in the first place.
Sure Shot is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:28 AM   #977
Greensboro
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyk View Post
Will anyone truly think we are Big Ten Champions if we somehow avoid playing Ohio State and Michigan that year? It would feel like an empty championship to me.
A couple empty championships look very good to me
Greensboro is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:34 AM   #978
mattcoldagelli
mattcoldagelli's Avatar
Location: North Shore
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that expansion makes us stronger.

There is this idea that the tradition and nostalgia of the Big Ten is just something to be discarded in wake of cold-hearted capitalism. That's an easy storyline, and it rings true because that's how the game works just about everywhere in our lives.

But I continue to believe that it's that wistful nostalgia that IS the monetizable property that makes the Big Ten a financial powerhouse above and beyond its ability on the field. Treating the Big Ten as an a la carte association of individual brands just totally misunderstands what has made us rich and powerful in the first place.
Can we revisit your "Adding TV markets is shortsighted and wrong" claim that you never elaborated on?

__________________
"Ron Matt Swanson Coldagelli - You are the funny version of GroundHogday." - krupalija chukwudebe

@mattcoldagelli

mattcoldagelli is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:37 AM   #979
Sybok
Posts: 1,209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that expansion makes us stronger.

There is this idea that the tradition and nostalgia of the Big Ten is just something to be discarded in wake of cold-hearted capitalism. That's an easy storyline, and it rings true because that's how the game works just about everywhere in our lives.

But I continue to believe that it's that wistful nostalgia that IS the monetizable property that makes the Big Ten a financial powerhouse above and beyond its ability on the field. Treating the Big Ten as an a la carte association of individual brands just totally misunderstands what has made us rich and powerful in the first place.
So what made the Big Ten "rich and powerful in the first place?"
Sybok is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:37 AM   #980
Sure Shot
Banned
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli View Post
Can we revisit your "Adding TV markets is shortsighted and wrong" claim that you never elaborated on?
I mean, that's basically it. You're building a penthouse on top while eroding the foundation.
Sure Shot is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:40 AM   #981
Sure Shot
Banned
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sybok View Post
So what made the Big Ten "rich and powerful in the first place?"
Elitism.
Sure Shot is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:46 AM   #982
Greensboro
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that expansion makes us stronger.
How do you measure strength? Bringing in $ makes B1G stronger. More TV exposure makes B1G stronger by opening up additional markets for Illinois to recruit (more visability to kids to impact recruiting & their families after they go to Illinois). More money makes it easier to improves facilities/hire coaches & generally build the program. I understand it changes things & we may or may not like that; but do you really think it doesn't offer the opportunity to make us stronger. To me part of the B1G is mainly public schools dominating a series of relatively large midwestern states...Southest is growing/B1G needs to expand in this direction to maintain strength long term. Right now the B1G has an advantage in revenues & ability to capitalize on revenues with big network...we want to lead & have our pick vs. follow & have limited choices.
Greensboro is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:49 AM   #983
Sure Shot
Banned
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greensboro View Post
How do you measure strength? Bringing in $ makes B1G stronger. More TV exposure makes B1G stronger by opening up additional markets for Illinois to recruit (more visability to kids to impact recruiting & their families after they go to Illinois). More money makes it easier to improves facilities/hire coaches & generally build the program. I understand it changes things & we may or may not like that; but do you really think it doesn't offer the opportunity to make us stronger. To me part of the B1G is mainly public schools dominating a series of relatively large midwestern states...Southest is growing/B1G needs to expand in this direction to maintain strength long term. Right now the B1G has an advantage in revenues & ability to capitalize on revenues with big network...we want to lead & have our pick vs. follow & have limited choices.

This idea that the Big Ten must physically occupy "SEC country" in order to survive is absolutely insane.
Sure Shot is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:52 AM   #984
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 3,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
This idea that the Big Ten must physically occupy "SEC country" in order to survive is absolutely insane.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the B1G won't "survive" without being in that footprint, but there is an awful lot of money to be made there, and money makes the conference stronger because it helps to support non-revenue sports.
Ransom Stoddard is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 11:58 AM   #985
Greensboro
Posts: 1,573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
This idea that the Big Ten must physically occupy "SEC country" in order to survive is absolutely insane.
I'm not saying we need to occupy SEC country to survive, I am saying growing to the south & east...MD/Rutgers...VA/NC/GT will help in the future
Greensboro is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:00 PM   #986
rsbc vet
Posts: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
This idea that the Big Ten must physically occupy "SEC country" in order to survive is absolutely insane.
So can we assume that in your opinion, it was "insane" for the SEC to add Mizzou and Texas A&M in order to "occupy" Big 12 territory?
rsbc vet is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:01 PM   #987
Sure Shot
Banned
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ransom Stoddard View Post
I don't think anyone is arguing that the B1G won't "survive" without being in that footprint, but there is an awful lot of money to be made there, and money makes the conference stronger because it helps to support non-revenue sports.
My point is that there is no money to be made there. It's a boondoggle waiting to happen, and a decision that can't be unmade.

When (not if, when) the major carriers in the NYC Metropolitan Area refuse to be held hostage by the BTN and we get nothing in cable fees from adding Rutgers, we can't just give them back.

But its not the initial financial loss of adding a school that can't pull their weight that's the problem. It's the loss of more and more of those traditional matchups. It's selling football schedule after football schedule where grumpy old alums only see 3 teams they remember playing. It erodes the foundation.
Sure Shot is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:02 PM   #988
Sure Shot
Banned
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by rsbc vet View Post
So can we assume that in your opinion, it was "insane" for the SEC to add Mizzou and Texas A&M in order to "occupy" Big 12 territory?
It wasn't quite as bad for several reasons. I would call it a "mistake", not "insane".
Sure Shot is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:10 PM   #989
GilThorpe
Banned
Location: Burr Ridge
Posts: 2,112
its a new world, college football is huge business, college basketball is big business, and in the south & west, baseball is business too.

Its all about the schools getting total control of all revenue streams, and the moeny being shared among the top 60 or so, and letting the rest of the FBS, FCS , DII & DIII schools fare for themselves.

I truly believe this is about the 4 main conferences getting all control of football and basketball monies, and leaving the NCAA and forming their new association.
GilThorpe is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:12 PM   #990
Groundhogday
Groundhogday's Avatar
Posts: 25,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by GilThorpe View Post
its a new world, college football is huge business, college basketball is big business, and in the south & west, baseball is business too.

Its all about the schools getting total control of all revenue streams, and the moeny being shared among the top 60 or so, and letting the rest of the FBS, FCS , DII & DIII schools fare for themselves.

I truly believe this is about the 4 main conferences getting all control of football and basketball monies, and leaving the NCAA and forming their new association.
Or negotiating a members only club within the NCAA.

__________________
ONLY ORANGE!
Groundhogday is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:22 PM   #991
troyk
Banned
Posts: 1,165
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonIllini View Post
Would you prefer us being at 12 teams or 10 and sitting on the outside while other mega conferences get BCS bids, big bowl games and all the young HS talent heads in that direction? What fun would playing OSU be if the B1G were a MAC caliber conference?

Would you prefer to have to subsidize our athletic department from our abjectly bankrupt state? Or from our academic pocket book? Is the annual OSU game worth us reducing the number of athletic teams we can support? Is it worth not being able to see our teams on television because the networks have gravitated to showing more 'important' conferences?
First of all, the Big Ten more or less started this mess by adding Nebraska and the dominoes started falling. Would the SEC add Mizzou and A&M if the Big Ten never added Nebraska? What if the Big Ten added Notre Dame as a full member. Does any of this still occur?

At any rate, I don't think adding upwards of 9 schools to the Big Ten makes sense for saving some of our sports. If it comes down to keeping traditions alive and sacrificing water polo or whatever, then so be it. Do those sports even matter?

As for the state being bankrupt, will it remain bankrupt for the next 20 years? Maybe it will, and if it does, then we have far worse things to fear than football. But I think this is an ebb and flow situation and we are deploying life rafts after taking on a little water. Just seems to knee-jerky.

As for those saying the Big Ten was founded on greed, maybe so. However, for years we were at 10 members or less. With Penn State we went to 11. We still played everyone fairly often. Now, we are talking about 16 or even 20. That is DOUBLING the size of the conference. That is not small potatoes. That makes things radically different in terms of what the Big Ten identity will be.
troyk is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 12:42 PM   #992
WesterveltVictoryCigar
Posts: 13,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greensboro View Post
A couple empty championships look very good to me
I don't think we'll have to worry about those. We're going to go from a once in a decade shot to once in a generation shot at a B1G title.
WesterveltVictoryCigar is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:10 PM   #993
AngryOrange
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 403
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyk View Post
First of all, the Big Ten more or less started this mess by adding Nebraska and the dominoes started falling. Would the SEC add Mizzou and A&M if the Big Ten never added Nebraska? What if the Big Ten added Notre Dame as a full member. Does any of this still occur?
The Big Ten adding Nebraska was not what really got the ball rolling, the ball started rolling with the TV deals everyone was getting ready to negotiate. The BTN is what got the ball rolling in most respects. Once it became profitable, it forced ESPN to up the ante to maintain control of the content. After that, the amount of money being paid for the product on the field exploded. The unequal sharing of revenues made the Big XII unstable, and the Big Ten openly stating they were looking for a new member absolutely shifted the landscape. But, the ACC had been pillaging the Big East for the same reason for quite a few years before the Big Ten move.
I think, based on what I wrote above, that it still does occur, but it plays out differently. I think Pac-10 expansion may have included Nebraska and Colorado then, and the process plays out, only with a different final outcome. YMMV.
AngryOrange is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:17 PM   #994
Sure Shot
Banned
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhogday View Post
Or negotiating a members only club within the NCAA.
Or just leaving for football only.
Sure Shot is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:45 PM   #995
DaytonIllini
Banned
Posts: 13,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coffee Mug View Post
I know I'm in the minority, but yes. What I like about Illinois sports has more to do with the "nostalgia" built up around things like tailgating, marching bands, school colors, Homecoming, and going to the Rose Bowl.

I have very little interest in the issues that preoccupy the national sports media: is Ohio State better or worse than Alabama? We must determine "the best team in the country" "on the field"! How much money can athletic departments extract from cable subscribers?

Everything I like about Big Ten football would be undiminished if the whole conference agreed to do away with athletic scholarships a la the Ivy League. As long as the teams we're competing against are on equal footing, it's all good.
I think you are definitely in the minority (which is ok). It sounds like High School football would be more to your liking as it has all the rivalry and none of the glitz. The Big 10 is not Pop Warner or the Ivy League and I don't think it ever was.
DaytonIllini is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 01:46 PM   #996
DaytonIllini
Banned
Posts: 13,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
I just fundamentally disagree with the idea that expansion makes us stronger.

There is this idea that the tradition and nostalgia of the Big Ten is just something to be discarded in wake of cold-hearted capitalism. That's an easy storyline, and it rings true because that's how the game works just about everywhere in our lives.

But I continue to believe that it's that wistful nostalgia that IS the monetizable property that makes the Big Ten a financial powerhouse above and beyond its ability on the field. Treating the Big Ten as an a la carte association of individual brands just totally misunderstands what has made us rich and powerful in the first place.
Well you and I agree on next to nothing so it doesn't surprise me but if the conventional wisdom was that you were stronger by being small we'd be shedding teams, not adding. And so would everyone else.
DaytonIllini is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:10 PM   #997
DaytonIllini
Banned
Posts: 13,108
Quote:
Originally Posted by troyk View Post
First of all, the Big Ten more or less started this mess by adding Nebraska and the dominoes started falling. Would the SEC add Mizzou and A&M if the Big Ten never added Nebraska? What if the Big Ten added Notre Dame as a full member. Does any of this still occur?

At any rate, I don't think adding upwards of 9 schools to the Big Ten makes sense for saving some of our sports. If it comes down to keeping traditions alive and sacrificing water polo or whatever, then so be it. Do those sports even matter?

As for the state being bankrupt, will it remain bankrupt for the next 20 years? Maybe it will, and if it does, then we have far worse things to fear than football. But I think this is an ebb and flow situation and we are deploying life rafts after taking on a little water. Just seems to knee-jerky.

As for those saying the Big Ten was founded on greed, maybe so. However, for years we were at 10 members or less. With Penn State we went to 11. We still played everyone fairly often. Now, we are talking about 16 or even 20. That is DOUBLING the size of the conference. That is not small potatoes. That makes things radically different in terms of what the Big Ten identity will be.
Yes other sports matter. Chemistry makes Illinois a small fortune and the poetry department hemorrhages cash. Should we shut down poetry at Illinois because it 'doesn't matter'?

Yes Illinois is going to be in worse shape as a state in 5 years and worse still in 10 without a massive bailout. So no money is coming from the state for our college.

I don't think serious people are talking about 20 teams. I think 16 is where we end up ultimately. We'll see though.

We needed 12 teams to have a conference championship. I don't think Nebraska and the Big 10 started this. You may be ignoring Miami and Va Tech and many others. This has been going on for a long time.

And PSU was not a rival of Illinois when I went to college. I think of them as one now. It takes time but rivalries form. Who cares if you don't see Purdue anymore but see Maryland. You are going to get used to it and be complaining 20 years from now if you cannot get your fix of Maryland-Illinois anymore because the conference got reshuffled.
DaytonIllini is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:30 PM   #998
IlliNYC
Posts: 1,180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
My point is that there is no money to be made there. It's a boondoggle waiting to happen, and a decision that can't be unmade.

When (not if, when) the major carriers in the NYC Metropolitan Area refuse to be held hostage by the BTN and we get nothing in cable fees from adding Rutgers, we can't just give them back.
I think you're completely missing the point on what Rutgers brings, how it weakens the ACC and puts ND back in play.

The state of New Jersey (itself) has almost 9 million people--it's a big state that is the guts of the NE corridor with a lot of cable subscribers. This move by itself may not lock down NYC--it certainly helps get it--but (w/PSU) it does lock down Philly (the 4th biggest TV market).

It's obviously a serious play for ND. If you're ND and you need to find a conference home what makes the most sense (money) now. SEC, Big 12, ACC or the B1G?

Will the B1G make serious inroads in NYC? Sure. There will be over 100K B1G Alumni in the metro area. e.g. I could imagine things like a B1G Conference Championship in the Meadowlands.

The move has obviously killed the Big East--but grabbing them also weakened the ACC. They were trying to become the east coast conference. Without the chance at Rutgers & losing MD that is now impossible. The B1G has taken their largest TV market, kept them from creeping into New York, all while giving the B1G a foothold on the East Coast.

I get the nostalgia for the old Big Ten--but conferences are in a kill or be killed situation right now. I've said this before, but I think the B1G could go all the way to 22 which would put us in a western division that is quite close to the original big ten.
IlliNYC is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:35 PM   #999
Sure Shot
Banned
Posts: 696
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonIllini View Post
Well you and I agree on next to nothing so it doesn't surprise me but if the conventional wisdom was that you were stronger by being small we'd be shedding teams, not adding. And so would everyone else.
Goodness gracious me, that's an epic strawman.
Sure Shot is offline
Old Dec 5, 2012, 02:36 PM   #1000
Ransom Stoddard
Ordained Dudeist Priest
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 3,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sure Shot View Post
My point is that there is no money to be made there. It's a boondoggle waiting to happen, and a decision that can't be unmade.

When (not if, when) the major carriers in the NYC Metropolitan Area refuse to be held hostage by the BTN and we get nothing in cable fees from adding Rutgers, we can't just give them back.

But its not the initial financial loss of adding a school that can't pull their weight that's the problem. It's the loss of more and more of those traditional matchups. It's selling football schedule after football schedule where grumpy old alums only see 3 teams they remember playing. It erodes the foundation.
I'm one of those grumpy old alums. I happen to live in SEC/ACC land, and if GT joined the BT I would probably get season tix for the Yellow Jackets in FB and BB. Not because I'm so much a fan of them (yet--although my daughter attends there) but because I want to see B1G games live, which is a very rare occasion without having to drive several hours each way once or twice a year at best.

BTN is also currently a package option on most of the Atlanta cable carriers. If there is a local B1G team, that might push it on to basic, which just makes for more eyes in front of the set, more advertising dollars, and more $$ back to the schools.

As for tradition--traditions change, that's the way of the world. Complaining about changes/loss of tradition doesn't bring them back, and doesn't help create new ones. Having said that, I'm not pushing for a 16 team conference, and would be opposed to anything over that, but I'm not "losing" anything if the B1G expands into the southeast and I'm sure as heck not going to lament not playing OSU and scUM every.single.year.
Ransom Stoddard is offline
Closed Thread
Thread Tools

Forum Jump