What if Rutgers Doesn't Deliver NYC?
What if we add Rutgers for the New York City market and it doesn't work? What happens if the Big Ten adds a school with mediocre (by B1G standards) academic value and one of the least successful NCAA Div I athletic departments in the country counting on a payoff that doesn't materialize? I hope Mr Delaney has some assurances from cable/satellite providers that the BTN will be moved from a sports pack to a basic tier in the entire New York/New Jersey area. If Rutgers does not deliver the NYC market any better than Temple or SMU would deliver the Philadelphia or Dallas markets, the Big Ten will have just voluntarily chained itself to an anchor.
Fox, BTN's major partner, has a 49% stake in the YES network, with an option to increase their share to 80%. You'll see the BTN basically strong-armed into that market as a package deal with YES, because people won't forego their beloved Yankees.
Hodge is entirely correct about Fox and the YES Network. Capitalism, it's a beautiful thing. Also how exactly is Rutgers not on-par with Big Ten academic standards? It's an AAU member, the state university of New Jersey and the largest university in the state. That seems to be the template for Big Ten schools.
I'll bite. Assuming the YES network acquisition falls through, it will fail to capture the market. And, if that is what happens, Rutgers will cost us far more in split revenue than they will bring in. Not only that but it will hurt and dilute the big ten brand. They would make us a less attractive conference when we go looking for the final two teams and we'd likely end up settling, eventually grabbing two mid tier teams that do nothing to really help the big ten. All in all, it would be a massive failure that could haunt the big ten.
But yes, i'm sure Delaney has assurances about the YES acquisition and it likely won't happen that way. But it's scary if it does.
AllDay, remind me again how adding a ranked football team dilutes the Big Ten brand? They may not have the non-revenue sports prestige of other universities, but Rutgers is better than 3/4s of the teams in the Big Ten when it comes to football.
No they aren't. They've finished in the top 25 once in their history. And may this year only because of a schedule reminiscent of an FCS team. They lost to Kent State. They would have 3ish wins depending on who they drew in the big ten this year.
You're kidding right? Who do they lose to oustide of OSU, PSU, UM, NU, and UW? Alright so not 3/4s, but 7/12s.
Have you actually watched them?
They lose to tOSU, The team up north, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Northwestern, and Penn State. Undoubtedly. They then likely lose to Michigan State and have toss ups with Indiana, Purdue, and Iowa. The only team they are definitely better than is Illinois. Even assuming they win those toss ups, that's a bottom half of the conference team in a conference that is already struggling with public perception. That's an undoubted dilution.
The one thing many people seem to overlook is that it has nothing to do with how many people are watching the games on the BTN...it has everything to do with how many people have to pay for the BTN each month regardless of whether they watch it or not. It'll get into the largest market in the country and bring in a ton of revenue. I'm actually not worried whatsoever about it getting done. This move would not have been made if there wasn't a damn near 100% guarantee that it would happen.
And I'm with William on this one in terms of their "inferiority" compared to other B1G schools. They have been on the up and coming in football for the last 10 years. Are they upper echelon? Absolutely not. But they have been more consistent than a large a portion, if not a majority, of the B1G schools. They bring good academics, a reputable athletic department that can only get better with added revenue after joining us, and a fantastic market. They may not be the sexy pick, but, as I stated in a post yesterday and as many have said as well, this and Maryland are just moves to set up the bigger move. Like 'Risk', as Ramzy alluded to, or chess, you position your pieces accordingly and then you go for the kill...and that's what I think Delaney is doing right now.
It doesn't have to bring NYC to be successful. New Jersey has about 9 million people. Just expanding the BTN into that state and having it picked up by carriers in New Jersey is going to add value. Being attached to the YES NETWORK gets Fox and the BTN into New York, Philly, and possibly Florida(although it may be a tough sell forcing it to carriers in Florida) So, at the very worst some value is added just by having New Jersey in the footprint. At the best it helps solidify the presence in Philly, captures New York, and possibly taps markets like Florida.
I don't think Kent State is a bad loss. They are ranked! They also beat a solid UC squad and have a pretty good shot at beating Louisville.
What people are failing to understand is it doesn't matter how many people in the NYC TV market watch college football or care about the Big Ten or even Rutgers for that matter......what matters here is that there is enough demand to have Rutgers football on TV that it will force the hand of cable providers to subscribe to have BTN...For example, Cablevision (owned by Jim Dolan-Knicks, Rangers, MSG) does not carry Big Ten right now but they will be forced to once this move happens meaning big $ for the Big Ten Network, meaning big $ for the Big Ten, meaning big $ for the Big Ten's teams, including Ohio State
The real question should be what if Rutgers and Maryland don't get their sh*t together when it comes the caliber of their Football & Basketball teams.
@phxbuck- see Alex's and other posts above. It doesn't matter what kind of product they put on the field/court.
Alex, I don't think people are failing to understand that.
The argument that is being made is that if the YES network acquisition falls through, Rutgers itself doesn't have the fan base to push BTN onto basic cable. Thereby not capturing those subscription fees. Not just enough people to watch the games, but not enough people who even care about the option to get the games.
It essentially all comes down to the YES network and Fox's ability to negotiate. It's, undoubtedly, a risky proposition.
As a follow on with Alex,
The same can be said for hoops, maybe even more so considering that the B1G is highly dominant right now.
@faux, agree to disagree. I am aware of the economic implications that people & schools will be making more money. I also think it matters what kind of product they put on the field.
ALLDAY, it's estimated that in the New York market there are over 600,000 Rutgers fans. Add the number of fans for Penn State, Michigan(who I believe are the two most popular B1G schools in NYC) along with fans from other schools including Maryland now, and you end up with enough demand to be carried in NYC, even without the YES Network deal.
AND, as I said before you still are going to add New Jersey to the BTN footprint and that's quite a large number of subscriptions on its own.
According to US News & World Report, Rutgers is ranked higher academically than Michigan State, Iowa, Indiana, and Nebraska.
Albert, 600k fans is less than 3% of the population in that area. Combining all other big ten schools and at most there are 8-10% of the population in that area that are big ten fans. There is no argument in which it makes sense without the YES network. None whatsoever. And it's not a done deal it's added in NJ, either, especially the populus parts.
Every time you guys talk about the YES network, I think of Phil Hartman playing Ed McMahon. Sadly, there are no clips of this to be found on that tube of yous.
You can kill a fly with your slipper or a cannon. Either way, the fly dies. -Ramzy
Rutgers is currently ranked higher than most of the every team in the B1G except for us and Nebraska. Last year their recruiting class was better than every B1G team other than us and Michigan.
That same NY Times blog article says Rutgers has a 3.0% share of the NYC population. Is that enough to force it on a basic tier? Along with the YES network? Maybe. I've also heard Kevin Plank sold stock to cover UMd's exit fee, then it turned out to be coincidental timing. As a B1G fanatic who doesn't mind a move to gain market share (so long as we are also the dominant athletic conference in the country), I hope the potential YES Network acquisition is also not coincidental timing.
Well the YES acquisition didn't fall through folks, which means that the BTN will now be forced into the NYC market: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/20/news-corp-yes-acquisition_n_2165866.html?utm_hp_ref=business
Ok, academically speaking: Rutgers is the #68 academic institution by USN&WR and spent only $351,564,000 on research in 2009 (most recent data available). Those figures rank 11 and 13 among the 14 B1G schools. Sure, they're an AAU member, but so is Oregon...and they are the #115 ranked school while spending $75,869,000 on research. The median B1G school is ranked #55 and spent $539,470,000. As far as B1G schools are concerned, Rutgers does not raise the academic profile. Whatdo they contribute?
That's good news. I do still worry about having only a minority share for another three years, though. But it should be enough.
You could say there are several schools in the B1G that don't contribute squat, but because they're already a member, nobody says anything about them.
My concern isnt the money part of it but If Rutgers lose 4-5 games a year in B!G football (very possible), What will that do for the perception of B!G football ?
O H I O is the Buckeye State
As far as the money goes, I'm going to trust the people who were actually part of the decision. I'm pretty sure they know more than we do.
For those wanting to strengthen the Big Ten in football, Rutgers has one of the worst football traditions in major college history. They've been ranked at the end of 4 seasons ever (2006, 1976, 1961, 1958) and never higher than 12th. They played in one bowl ever (a loss in 1978) before Schiano. Regardless of the Edsall era, Maryland has a much better tradition in football (ranked at the end of 19 seasons, including 2010, 2003, 2002, 2001, and a National Championship way back in 1953). They were pretty strong in the 1950's, 70's, 80's, and 2000's. Rutgers, not so much.
Since when has Delaney ever made a move that was a gamble, or just for the hell of it? Seriously, do you think it's an accident that Fox who owns half of the BTN just happened to be in negotiations with the YES Network at the time all of this stuff started going down? These moves have been in the works for a while. Everything is coming to a head all at once.
Deshaun past tradition can be entirely irrelevant. Minnesota has 7 national titles, let me know when they field a better current product than Rutgers.
XTREME, the B1G perception is already in the crapper...so it can't get much worse. Plus everyone knows, including outsiders, that this isn't to raise the perception level of B1G football. They are viewed, as well as Maryland, as teams that will be mid-tier type programs with Rutgers having a possible chance at some solids years here and there.
As I've noted a half of a dozen times in the last couple days, this was more of a move to gain ground in some large markets and to start getting us closer to some larger pieces that will get us into the recruiting grounds in the South. We need to stop looking at this as a final move and see it on a larger scale move for the good...more markets = more visibility = better recruiting power = better teams = better games = better national coverage = more $$$...obviously that's ideal but that's the premise of what Delaney is going for here.
Rutgers has absolutely no positive tradition on which to build. That can work out, given unique circumstances (see Phil Knight and Oregon). But Rutgers doesn't have that here. They have one of the very worst NCAA Div I athletic departments in the country. Over the last 3 years in the Learfield Directors Cup (all-sports trophy for everyone in the country), Ohio St leads the Big Ten with an average of 1,102.78 points (Frick Yeah Bucks!!!). Maryland averages a solid 745.70 and Iowa is dead last in the B1G with a mean of 451.39. That is, until Rutgers' 158.17 joins the conference. They have been indescribably bad to average in football, and just about every other sport. This certainly was not a decision based on anything athletics related, football or otherwise. I cheered for Rutgers when Schiano was choppin' wood in 2006, but I don't like this move now.
Rutgers doesn't have a sugar daddy, instead they just have one of the most talent rich states in the country. Again I never said they were a non-revenue sports powerhouse, but they have finally built a solid football program.
When we were analyzing expansion in 2010, Jim Delaney told Gordon Gee "we are looking for HR additions." Maryland is a double. Combined with another double, we score a run. Virginia is that double. North Carolina is that double. Georgia Tech, maybe. Rutgers is not a double. They are a swing and a miss. And since Chicago was the only team to ever leave the conference (except TTUN, who left in 1907 and returned in 1917), we are stuck with them forever. Schools like Notre Dame, Nebraska, Oklahoma, USC, and Florida (as much as I hate those last 2) are home runs. Texas is a multi-run home run. If Rutgers can't deliver the BTN on basic tier cable/satellite packages in the NYC market, they will be a game-ending ground-ball double-play.
Deshaun: Rutgers is 68th among all schools, including Ivies, Johns Hopkins, best tech schools, premier private colleges, etc.
Rutgers is ranked below Michigan 29, Wisc 41, PSU 46 (tie), ILL 46 (tie), Ohio State 56, and Purdue 65, but those are among the premier major public universitities in the nation.
And what are the other options? Virginia is 24, UNC 30, BC 31, GT 36, texas 46 (tie), Syracuse 58 (tie), and Pittsburgh 58 (tie) and who knows which of those were available and/or economically helpful? It's not like the Big Ten had a choice between Rutgers or UCLA.
Let's look at the talent in these states. For this, I like to use NFL draft picks produced by high schools in a given state because NFL teams' only agenda is acquiring talent, not the bias of recruiting rankings (ahem, ESPiN). Over a 3 year span from 2007-2009 (most recent data available), the Maryland/DC area produced 7.67 draft picks per year. New Jersey produced 6.67. Virginia produced 10.0 and North Carolina 8.33. I'm not saying the talent sucks in Jersey. Clearly it doesn't. But there were much better options to pair with Maryland than Rutgers, who may or may not deliver the NYC media market. Of course, UMd paired with UVa or UNC may have been enough to get the BTN on in NYC as well as a quicker growing area of the country.
Their football program is pretty solid right now. A lot more than almost half of the current B1G teams.
JT
Deshaun: you don't appreciate the mastery of Delany's moves here. For one thing, it's part of a secret plan to keep Jersey and Philly kids from terrorizing Columbus, Ann Arbor, Bloomington, and other more civilized cities west of central PA. Delany was shocked by the nonstop sofa fires in Morgantown and he feared that other Big Ten fans bases might become as booze-addled and bitter as PSU fan, so he had to take drastic measures. Rutgers to the Big Ten is part of an aggressive Jersey Shore repatriation plan.
What each school brings to the table is multifaceted, and can be measured in what they provide academically, athletically, geographically (albeit a smaller concern than it used to be), and with regards to how much an institution moves the proverbial needle. How much a school moves the needle is measured both nationally and regionally (say, the NYC market or Omaha). If a school is stronger in one area, especially one in which the conference is lacking, that school has a higher value. For example: Texas is not geographically contiguous (although travel would actually be much lighter in the B1G than Pac 12 or ACC), but adds so much in the other 3 categories, it is an obvious home run. Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech contribute far more in these 4 categories than Rutgers. Rutgers brings the NYC market, so much so that the ACC took Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Pitt, and Syracuse without offering a spot to Rutgers. That NY Times blog we talked about earlier says Nebraska moves the needle greatly in Omaha. Iowa and Iowa St make a small dent. Nobody particularly moves the needle in NYC. Even Rutgers, Notre Dame, and Penn St (the top 3 in the market) are followed by a combined 5.2% of the NYC population.
Deshaun, I think you're looking at the market in the wrong way. I understand your wariness in regards to what they bring to the table athletically. That's fine but the thing about all of those teams going to the ACC was far in advance of the BTN becoming as powerful as it is and after the Big East was looking like it was going to fall apart and 2 teams felt the need to jump ship to the ACC. You keep bringing up market percentages of teams and those are facts that can't be disputed, but it can't be looked at in that way. The ACC Network doesn't have the staying power that the BTN does. ACCN can't break into this market, and mainly for the reasons you mention...New Yorkers don't typically care about college football. But it's not about whether or not they care about football...it's about making them pay for this whether they like it or not. The acquisition of the YES Network by Fox is exactly what they needed to make happen. Inviting Rutgers was a calculated move knowing that this was going to happen. It's not a coincidence that it occurred on the same day. Now this will be bundled with the YES Network because this city will not live without their Yankees and you're instantly adding millions upon millions of people to the revenue stream to cover approx. 3% of Rutgers fans...I'll call that a win in terms of market value.
UnkyBuck, I completely understand what you're saying about how network and subscriber premiums work. I believe the acquisition of the YES network by News Corp is the only way the BTN will be forced onto basic tiers in the New Jersey/New York markets. Unlike getting the BTN on basic tiers in Omaha when we added Nebraska, Rutgers is not important enough to New Yorkers by itself. However, if we grant the premise that News Corp could force BTN onto basic tiers across the NY/NJ markets by bundling negotiations with the YES network, is it not logical to think News Corp could/would have done this regardless of who was paired with UMd? The B1G could have added a metaphorical double (UVa, UNC, Ga Tech, etc) or a home run (hypothetically, Texas) and still executed the combined YES/BTN negotiation in the NYC market as opposed to adding a dud like Rutgers.
We don't need Maryland and Rutgers to be powerhouse schools for them beneficial to the conference they will be beneficial just by their location. Location, location, location and they are living on prime real estate. Do you really want another powerhouse school in the Big Ten? Ohio State/TSUN/MSU/PSU/Nebraska and ocassionally Wisconsin/Iowa/Michigan State is PLENTY of good teams. The spot in the playoff will be guaranteed to the B1G conference champ why make the road harder?
I think you could think that, Deshaun. I won't argue that. But I think having the "local" team makes it a little more important. Even you said that Rutgers, ND, and PSU make up 5.2% of the market with Rutgers making up 3% of it. So by grabbing the more popular of the market teams, regardless of how small it is, helps open up the possibility of getting more viewers too. And I noted above the chain of what can happen once viewership goes up.
And I'm not arguing about the home run that you want. I get that. We all want that home run. I just think that this move, along with Maryland, is driving a wedge into the ACC geographics. Think of a map in the area where you have Pittsburgh, Syracuse, BC, and possibly UConn with a divided from the ACC by B1G teams. What that can do is hurt the ACC Network in terms of viewers and subscriptions (no one in most of PA, NJ, and Maryland will care for the ACC Network) which will hurt revenue for them. That will in turn increase our footing this area and can allow us to go after Virginia, UNC, and/or GT. My preferred are the latter 2 as they bring both good athletics and academics. I think those 2 of those 3 teams are who Delaney truly wants in the long run and this was the first move in the game to get them.
I'll take their recruiting footprint. Football and Basketball.
~Because we couldn't go for three~
New Yorkers don't care about college football...yet. Maybe some of them don't really know what they're missing. We just need to win a NC in the playoff era and we could add a few million more bandwagon fans (or haters) in the NYC area. The BTN will shove OSU down their throats and they'll be forced to love us.
If News Corp acquired YES as part of the plan to force the BTN on basic tiers in the NYC market, how much does the addition of Rutgers enhance the likelihood of a successful negotiation? Did the addition of Rutgers instead of UVa or UNC improve News Corp's odds from 20% to 90%, or did they only improve a 95% certainty to 99%? How much of a sure thing did this become with the YES network onboard? I guess that's the kind of thing Jim Delaney had to monetise and risk analyze. I agree about expanding the footprint into ACC country and establishing a fortress in the mid-Atlantic region. But a 16-team Big Ten with UMd, Rutgers, UNC, and Ga Tech does not win conference expansion. Even if we substituted UVa for Rutgers, we don't win. Sure, we establish ourselves as one of the top 4 while eliminating a competitor, but we do not establish ourselves as the undisputed top academic/athletic conference in the country. If a given move does not further that mission, what is the point? We need bigger fish to go along with the Atlantic outpost.
Yes, Nick, I would like more powerhouse programs in the Big Ten. I'm guessing that comment referred specifically to football prowess. I put together a matrix of football program rankings including historical success (ESPN program prestige rankings), recent records and AP poll finishes over the past 10 years. Ohio St is the #3 ranked program, after USC and Oklahoma (all rated A+). For a frame of reference, Wisconsin is a B, Michigan St is a C+, and Purdue is a D+. I want a B1G with as many A's as possible. Maryland is a C and Rutgers is a D-. We can do better than Rutgers.
@Deshaun: Adding UNC and Ga Tech might not make the B1G THE expansion winner, but it would make them A winner. The B1G would be assured of being one of the four super conferences (if that's where this all ends up), they would be extremely stable, the network would probably be in all the major Midwest markets, the 2 biggest markets in the northeast (along with New Jersey), and the Atanta market. The B1G would also expand their footprint into fertile recruiting grounds of NJ, the DC area, N. Carolina, and Georgia.
If CFB does, in fact, go to 4 super-conferences, the playoffs for the NC will likely consist of conference champions, instead of at large teams. Therefore, conference strength will mean little. It will actually make it easier for tOSU to win NCs. Also, the enormous amount of money the BTN will be bringing in will allow member schools to invest in facility upgrades, and hopefully, improved coaching.
Saying all this, though, I would obviously prefer schools like Texas and ND, but if that is not possible (which I doubt it is), the other schools discussed are not a ad consolation.
I think the whole thing stinks. Going against the tradition is not this issue (been there last year), but I think that it is more important to find a team that has a national audience, much like Nebraska last year. I think that begging Oklahoma and their little brother oSU, would have been a great coup. But Maryland? Rutgers? Jesus. What a disaster. Nobody who lives there even gives a shit about either of them.
1 Notre Dame
2 Oklahoma (with Okie St....sure, fuck it )
3 Tennessee
4 Pittsburgh
others Louisville, Syracuse, West Virginia. Rutgers?
Can't believe I'm about to say this, but there's more to life than football, and the B1G is more than just an athletic conference. The Oklahoma schools are good on the gridiron, but they're woefully short academically to be in the B1G. If the endgame is Texas and/or ND, I'm fine with everything that's happened.
"The revolution will be televised."
Being the 4th best out of 4 is not what the B1G has come to expect. Simply being an expansion survivor instead of the expansion winner? Isn't the Big Ten on more solid footing than that? We started this thing (Dec of 2009) as either 1st or 2nd. How did we get to solidifying status as top 4? The B1G is in position to make themselves the most dominant conference in the NCAA, and OSU could conceivably be the most dominant program in the most dominant conference. Shoot for that rather than easy access to football playoffs.
Responding to various comments about Oklahoma: First things first. Oklahoma is not as academically woeful as everyone thinks. They have the same US News & World Report ranking as Nebraska (#101) with about 5 times the endowment. Sure, they are not members of the AAU, but the Big Ten website does not tout having 11 AAU members. The 1st line under the "Academics" section of the "Legends and Leaders Fact Sheet" proudly points out that, "All Big Ten Universities have been granted Tier One Status by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, a distinction awarded to just over 100 universities." Know who one of those universities is? Oklahoma. Sure, Oklahoma State is the #132 school with the tiny endowment who is a CFAT Tier 2 institution. Luckily, Oklahoma and OK St are not tied together via a shared Board of Regents the way Kansas and Kansas State are. They are no more tied together than Texas and Texas A&M. We saw how that played out when one had a better opportunity.
This isn't just about Rutgers it getting our good schools out there for publicity in a large market we are not in yet. People will watch tOSU at Rutgers. Even if they know Rutgers will lose some want to see the big brand name schools
Wherever you are, there you be!
If Rutgers doesn't pay up I'll break their legs.
I honestly don't even see Notre Dame as an end game anymore. Some of the projections and numbers I've read on various blogs that people who worked in the television industry have come up with show Rutgers as far more valuable than Notre Dame, and Maryland about the same. There are other schools out there that would be essentially the same as Notre Dame and you don't have to put up with Notre Dame always wanting their way. They just aren't as valuable as we used to think they were and that they still do believe they are.