Would they really kick us out?
- Thread starter Hoosiervannah
- Start date
I recall how you fine folks trashed IU for hiring a coach with no head coaching experience. And that was well before the stakes went up.
IU doesn’t “travel well” for basketball. Road games in a basketball arena are virtually devoid of opposing fans. Maybe 50 parents sitting behind the team bench is about it. This entire realignment is around football. Has zilch to do with basketball. People need to get that through their heads that basketball drives nothing in this.
If basketball had any pull, we’d be clamoring to get Duke, North Carolina and UCONN into the conference.
IU will be like the 16th or 17th seat at the table.
Who the hell is making anything up? You are posting out of ignorance or just being a jerk.
The BTN is on my Verizon Fios channel bundle. Prior to Rutgers' admission that was not the case. It is on all over the NYC metro area. Everybody who has cable gets the basic list. We pay for every channel on that list. Don't you know how cable works? Every channel in a bundle gets a piece of the monthly charge whether you watch any channel or not. That is how cable works. Stop being silly.
If your channel is on cable in a large market you get cash flow from each of the hookups in the cable system.
Your comment suggests strongly that you do not understand how cable systems work if you think that ratings of any channel in the bundle determine whether or not they receive a part of your monthly payment.
Last edited:
On some level I don't really care about that if it means we don't have to play every year the 3 teams we'll never financially compete with. I was at IU when ARE was there. Team was fun to watch and never won a whole lot but that didn't hurt my experience as a student. And as a alum I like to go to competitive games. I don't see the need to be the free game for the big 3 every year. I think the imbalance is just going to get worse.
Once they expand the playoffs the other bowl games are going to become meaningless (they are already on the way with the players opting out - which I understand). There's got to be some thought about post-season for teams that aren't the big hitters.
In other conferences, teams that have been lower-ranked have grown their programs to where they compete successfully against the big guys in their conference. I think of the Big12, which Texas and Oklahoma dominated for many years. Schools like Baylor and TCU reached the point where they won conference championships and positions in major bowls.
It would be a difficult, but not insurmountable, job for IU to compete against the big3 and their ilk. It would require a major commitment for the AD and a major commitment of cash. That may well affect other programs. The real question is the commitment to do so.
You now owe us the ratings numbers that you clearly claimed thet NU and Rutger deliver in Chicago and NYC respectively plu some prrof that you now understand the meaning of irony.
You are demanding data that is irrelevant to the discussion.
Please explain how in my cable bill the fees paid by the cable system to the different networks is dependent upon the ratings associated with that channel. My cable system has bundled about 200 channels into their bundle. The system requires the purchase of a bundle. You do not do a la carte.
Of the 200 channels, in a month I doubt that we exceed watching more than 25. However, I still have to pay for the other 175. Each of them gets a payment from my bill. So how do the ratings of any show on any one of the 175 affect me or my bill? It doesn't; they are irrelevant. Their cash stream is a function of simply being on the cable system regardless of my viewing a show on them.
Cable systems insist on bundling packages rather than an a la carte system. I would prefer a la carte, as then I would not pay for the 175 that I do not watch. However, the cable companies don't let you do that.
So given the way the system is, the presence of Rutgers in the B1G placed the BTN on the cable systems here. Whether or not my next door neighbor, a NYU grad, ever watches a BTN game, involving schools in which he has no affiliation or real interest in, he still pays something to the BTN. That is the point. BTN gets paid no matter what he does. So ratings for these games are irrelevant as presence on the system is what matters. Large population centers mean large number of cable customers which means greater cash flow to the BTN.
This is not that hard to understand but apparently you do not.
Last edited:
I am trying to help you recover from this mess you got yourself in when you claimed that NU and Rutger are already delivering the ratings that networks and leagues desire from two mega markets like Chicago and NYC. Simply post the data.
If you cannot do that then simply admit you F'd up and head back to the hog barn.
You and a couple others here continue to trash this forum.
The only comments that I have made about the ratings of Rutgers and Northwestern in this thread are that: 1) I do not know them and 2) they are irrelevant to the discussion. So your claim that I was citing the deliverance of great ratings is nonsense. If you continue to claim otherwise, please cite in my posts where those statements were made. You are making things up. A simple review of my posts in this thread will demonstrate that I am correct. You have a history here of doing so.
The BTN has been around for more than 16 years. It has been a staple on many cable systems for most of its existence. Many, many articles have been written about how the expansion of the Big Ten has been driven to access major metro areas in order to generate cable access in those areas. If you doubt that, GOOGLE and see.
Since its acceptance into the Big Ten, Rutgers has had a pretty poor record in football. Rutgers is a better example than NW because it is outside the normal Big Ten region where there are likely to be a good number of alums of other B1G schools. So why would you expect a losing team to get a large viewership in a metro area? The simple reason is that there enough alums who will turn in to watch even a non-interesting game. For example, 243K people watched the ISU-IU game recently. That was a blowout between two teams likely to end with losing records; not one that would be considered to be of great interest. But it was on the cable here where there are relatively few alums of either. Simply put, there were enough Rutgers grads in metro NYC to get the BTN on the system and that is what mattered. Once you are on the cable system, you tend not to get bounced from it. Presence is sticky. I am sure that there are a rare cases of channels getting dropped but they are few and far between. Personally, I cannot remember a channel that was dropped.
A cable system makes money by hookups. Each station in a bundle gets money from each customer. ESPN used to be the channel with the largest monthly payment from cable companies. I believe it was around $7 per month a while ago. Some channels are well under a dollar. The NYC metro area has approximately 10 million cable hookups. If a channel gets 10 cents a month from each customer that is $1 million/month just from NYC. I am sure that the company getting 10 cents doesn't have many viewers, but they still get that million. They got it even though I didn't watch it. But they were in the bundle and that is all that mattered.
.
Hasnt the relevant discussion always been about the BTN getting access to cable systems, not about ratings, per se?
That is like beating your sister at a dunk contest.I'm not so sure I would be upset. The winning would be nice and I doubt I'd tire of that.
I always dominated her in the family dunk contest at Christmas and enjoyed it every time it happened.
You are quite correct. The other poster claiming the opposite is being argumentative simply to be so or else has reading issues.
the entire US pay tv universe, including greater NYC, has pretty much had access to BTN since yr 2 of BTN's existence. (or soon thereafter).
the difference between areas "in market" ala the midwest, and out of market, (everywhere else), was what cable tier BTN was on, and how much per sub per month was BTN getting.
in adding Rutgers, the B10 hoped to move BTN in greater NYC and NJ from a cable tier to expanded basic, and to the "in market" per sub per mo price.
in the end, the league did get BTN moved to expanded basic in that market, but i have reason to believe they did not get the "in market" rate they really wanted, and know not that the whole thing didn't end up being pretty much revenue neutral for the league. (though the greater distribution would bring more ad revenue, which is generally only a fraction of sub revenue).
as for ratings, ratings are probably a minor driver of sub revenue, but a major driver of the incremental ad revenue.
all that said, everyone, including the media, overrates BTN's financial impact vs the B10's tier 1,2, deals with the other networks.
i don't think BTN brings in near as much as the tier 1,2, contracts do.
as for how much financially did the B10 add revenue wise when RU and UMd were added, no one, not even Delany or the execs at Fox or the major networks could ever answer that question, as outside of the difference in BTN revenue which is the only difference, if any, that can actually be quantified, no one will ever know the answer to that question since the tier 1,2, contracts were also renegotiated at the time, and it's literally impossible for anyone to differentiate how much of gains, if any, were from adding RU and UMd, and how much of the the gaines were from the renegotiation of the contracts, which to date always results in much much more revenue whenever any major college or pro league does a new contract.
all that said, don't forget you also added 2 more cuts of the pie forever, and significantly lessened IU voting shares in the process.
i personally thought and think adding RU and UMd was a terrible move for the league, though both are great institutions. (i thank adding Neb was bad for the B10 and for Neb).
i also think adding RU and UMd was never the real goal, as imo Delany's real goal was to also add UNC and UVa and maybe others in the process, while the SEC takes Clemson, FSU, Miami, SC, with the ultimate goal of taking out the ACC.
imo, killing off the B12 and ACC were always Delany's "expansion" goals, as the real money was in corporate consolidation, and killing off the ACC and B12 as negotiating rivals. (which the league did later succeed with in killing off the PAC).
imo, "expansion" was always about corporate consolidation through hostile takeovers, thus monopolizing negotiating leverage with the networks, not adding this or that school and market, and diluting the shares in the process.
Last edited:
I've heard Galen Clavio address this on Crimson Cast. He seems to have a good handle on stuff like this and he thinks we are safe. I will hask him to explain his reasoning the next time he does a mailbag.
i enjoyed reading your post. It is well thought out and informative.
I have familiarity with Rutgers as my wife holds undergraduate and graduate degrees from there. Her family has a long history of association with the university. Rutgers has some very, very good departments. I know less about Maryland, though I attended school nearby.
I am skeptical about the addition of UVa and UNC to the B1G. In order for that to happen, the ACC would have to implode and I do not see that with the addition of the California schools. As I understand it, it now requires more votes to dissolve the conference and free up the GoR. And isn't the expiration of the GoR more than a decade away?
Your young and charismatic coach should be coaching down the street at McCutcheon.
"IU doesn't travel well for basketball" is on your Mt. Rushmore of stupid posts.
Do you live in a cave in Idaho? How do you get Internet there? I’m picturing you sitting around in camouflage 24 hours a day, seven days a week because you’re waiting for the government to bust in your door and take away your freedom.
Now onto the specifics of your post, The Big Ten revenue stream and the Big Ten network itself have created hundreds of opportunities for 아이유 students to hone their craft as announcers on Big Ten student view. It’s just one very minor, but very specific example of how the Big Ten network and the revenue that comes with our media deal in general has directly benefited students . Not to mention the fact that the athletic department has provided money to the university out of there meteorites share.
You really should have your doctor change your medication dosage. You’ve got to be schizophrenic or paranoid or both.
A lot of poorly written paragraphs here, but not seeing anything that backs up your claims of NU and Rutger already delivering the ratings for chicago and NYC. Keep trying big guy. But, hey...you have supertroll in your corner now...so good for you.
You are so foolish it is funny. Two other posters here have agreed that the point of discussion is hook-ups, not ratings. It would make no sense to claim ratings are important and then say they are essentially meaningless. My posts were clear to others. You are the one with the comprehension problem.
Ok, so "young and charasmatic" defines the target for a "swing for the fences" "home run hire" in today's game.
Got it.
Oh, and i just tuned in to your game...and apparently he has some work to do on understanding the rules. but hey...he is young and charasmatic.
Trump has no plan to reduce your cable bill or the price of football tickets.
yeah...well one was IUDanapoint...so you have that going for you. good to see you living on the IU board DURING your game.
And actually, he made the same argument I did until he realized what i was saying and then flipped. Typical.
Last edited:
Yes - indeed. This is why outside of the very few tourney games IU goes to, we have dominant road crowds at all of the other Big Ten arenas? They must be wearing the other schools colors. IU doesn’t do shit in the tournament games anymore so the IU faithful are truly traveling well…..on early spring break.
I don’t know what your definition of traveling well means but it’s almost never used in basketball.
I would disagree to an extent. The label is used typically for the few programs like IU that travel well to neutral site games, tournament games and some campus sites where seats can be acquired in some volume. LVN, Hawaii, Atlantis, Indy, BTT, NCAA, etc etc. some campus sites like Evanston and then when teams are down and seats are avail. I have seen large IU crowds at Ill and a couple big crowds at WL in the down down years at pu. Hope to see you in ATL despite the prediction here that ATL is a home game for AU similar to IU playing in Indy.
I will simply point out that when challenged to support your false claim about my post you are unable to do so. You have conveniently chosen to avoid doing so which is the mark of dishonesty. You like to demand others supply support but usually manage to avoid doing so in your own posts.
You’re still here?
Just admit you made a mistake and move on rather than writing these semi coherent messes
Last edited:
if there were no deals with Fox or NBC or CBS or Disney and no BTN, IU and other schools' students could produce, direct, announce, do all the camera work on, and live stream every football and basketball and volleyball and baseball and soccer game.
and they could do an excellent job of it. it isn't rocket science and the media school no doubt has good people to instruct and oversee.
one can now get a camera for a couple hundred bucks that's 10 times better than one that cost $20,000 in the 80s.
no satellite time needed. no broadcast spectrum needed.
and everyone who wished could watch every game and every match for free, and the students producing, announcing, and putting on the games, would become pros fast, and those on camera would become well known..
producing and broadcasting college sports once required media partners.
it no longer does in the slightest.
it's now a partnership just about the money, and like i said, the money all goes to only a very very very small handfull of coaches and c-suite execs and mostly to the construction industry, while no student, or player, or faculty member, or alum, or fan, or non c-suite staff member, benefits a cent, while the fans and the alums finance everything out of their own pockets.
amazing how this has been pushed as something that benefits the schools and the fans.
that's total horsesht being wrapped in a school flag and sold to suckers.
we've all seen the childrens' hospital next to the Iowa Stadium.
how much of the money is it or Riley getting?
what isn't skimmed off by the coaches and c-suite AD execs, goes to the construction industry to build unneeded opulence, much of which was probably of far greater value as parking, greenspace, and land needed for the future.
don't shoot the messenger. (unless that's your job here).
Last edited:
Not to interrupt, but getting booted from the conference or being left out of a super conference aren't the only paths to irrelevance for football's have-nots.
www.ocregister.com
Alexander: Promotion/relegation in college football? It’s actually on track
Two years ago it was only this columnist’s wacky idea, but a Boise State administrator actually has the first stirrings of a plan.
www.ocregister.com
Not going to happen because Athletic Depts. base their planning on the cash flow from media deals. If you get relegated that changes those numbers a lot, potentially leaving your budget in disarray.Not to interrupt, but getting booted from the conference or being left out of a super conference aren't the only paths to irrelevance for football's have-nots.
Alexander: Promotion/relegation in college football? It’s actually on track
Two years ago it was only this columnist’s wacky idea, but a Boise State administrator actually has the first stirrings of a plan.
No no no no tough guy. You made the claim. You are so similar to the other troll here it is not funny.
