B10 made a mistake not going after Pitt or Mizzou

DuffMan said:
I understand that Pitt wouldn't add $$ in the short term. I think that the additional geographic rivalries and their tradition make up for that. I'd be ok with a few hundred thousand less in TV money if it was for the betterment of the league as a whole. I think adding Pitt does that.
Click to expand...


You'd be okay with it... does NOT mean the B1G would be okay with it. I completely understand your reasoning and argument and I totally see your side of view. But its all about the $green$ now of days and Pitt would cost us that much.. not help bring in Revenue...

I personally think the B1G is gonna sit on their thumbs until the big conferences are inevitable and snatch up ND... and whoever else at that time... But for now? we're sittin.. .
 
DuffMan said:
I understand that Pitt wouldn't add $$ in the short term. I think that the additional geographic rivalries and their tradition make up for that. I'd be ok with a few hundred thousand less in TV money if it was for the betterment of the league as a whole. I think adding Pitt does that.
Click to expand...

How do those things better the league? Very few people across the country (and even in Pittsburgh) care about Pitt.
 
CAARHawk said:
I just have a totally different take on all of this since I moved down to SEC country and actually have been talking to non-BCS conference reps.

While national press people and such have been blowing with every breeze that has popped up, the people I have talked to down here have been really, really consistent from day one.

Their take is that (1) Superconferences with four team divisions are inevitable. (2) The bottom half of the B12 are going west. The SEC wants a more geographic western division. (3) The four big conferences do not want to get into bidding wars for particular schools, hence no OU to SEC talk.

Missou to the West sets up a nice four team Division with LSU, Ark, TA&M, and Missou. The SEC sees Bama, Georgia, LSU, and Florida as their anchor teams in each division.
Click to expand...

Superconferences won't happen, unless really smart people continue to act in panic buying mode.
Once the commissioners and their business analysts begin to break it down, they will realize, based on history, that large mergers (much like in the business world) rarely work and often hurt quality and profitability in the long run.
Bottom teams will become even more marginalized and media will become even more hyper focused on the top teams than they are now. The overall product will become even more homogenized. Eventually, the whole product will become worse.
From an economics standpoint, Superconferences would slide beyond the maximal value created on a utility curve, as diminishing returns would be reached and aggregate utlity (popularity) would be reduced.
Think of it this way, if Iowa was in the SEC and consistently finished in the middle to bottom half of the conference, would you still be as interested in Iowa? Over time, less interest in Iowa would have several outcomes: 1. you would seek out another team to root for 2. You would lose interest in college football all together. My guess is the latter would occur as we have many, many entertainment options and will tend to put our eyeballs and money where we get some level of payoff (satisfaction).
I believe SuperConferences would kill the sport. Right now, we might be near the optimal balance of number of conferences and size (number of teams per conference). Some tweaking to the BCS or playoff would enhance this balance...but that is another argument.
 
DuffMan said:
I understand that Pitt wouldn't add $$ in the short term. I think that the additional geographic rivalries and their tradition make up for that. I'd be ok with a few hundred thousand less in TV money if it was for the betterment of the league as a whole. I think adding Pitt does that.
Click to expand...

It would not be a few hundred K less in TV money. Would be much more than that. B1G already owns the PA market with PSU. Pitt would have been a convenience pick, after you get a Notre Dame. Getting ND means you can flesh the rest out with things that are geographic and academic fits.
 
ICHawk24 said:
I still have yet to hear a reason why the B1G would take MO.
Click to expand...

Then you really haven't been paying attention.

1 - Two major media markets in Kansas City and St. Louis
2 - AAU member

ICHawk24 said:
4x16 will never happen. The incentive isn't there.
Click to expand...

And yet, we now have a 14-team ACC and a 13-(probably soon 14)-team SEC.

The Big Ten would go to 13 at the snap of a finger if Notre Dame wanted in.

We seem to be well on our way to 16-team super conferences.
 
Last edited:
JonDMiller said:
It would not be a few hundred K less in TV money. Would be much more than that. B1G already owns the PA market with PSU. Pitt would have been a convenience pick, after you get a Notre Dame. Getting ND means you can flesh the rest out with things that are geographic and academic fits.
Click to expand...

But this is almost a chicken and egg thing -- do you get the complementary pieces in order to get ND, or is it the other way around? I agree with Duff that I think the BIG missed opportunities in not getting Pitt and Missouri in the fold. Having (briefly) attended Mizzou, I agree it has more of a southern school feel. But it meets all the criteria, I think, and its teams would provide added competition in the B1G.

Pitt, too, is in the conference footprint and looks and plays very much like a B1G institution. PSU is certainly the dominant player in Pennsylvania but the state is hardly monolithic across its 280 miles. Western Pennsylvania feels very different than central and eastern Pennsylvania, and the Pittsburgh area often feels slighted by happenings in Philadelphia, Harrisburg and State College. Pitt would have been a nice addition.

Should the superconference concept suddenly catch momentum, as I think it will in another year, then who else does the B1G bring in with Pitt and Mizzou off the market?
 
Last edited:
IMO there is no need to rush to any decisions. I like the pace the B1G is setting. They will take their time and if they decide to expand further it will only be with institutions that add to the conference.

Mizzou and Pitt are viable options, but if the B1G comes calling I think it will be easy to pluck Pitt from the ACC. And unless Mizzou goes SEC, I think they still have their door open to B1G as well. The SEC and PAC12 are the only other solid conferences right now. Of course my opinion is biased, but I think if the B1G wanted to it could win most 'recruiting battles' between those conferences, they just have more to offer.

Again IMO, ND is the one school the B1G will expand for right now. If ND finally accepts their fate and joins a conference it will be the B1G. It could be alone or part of a package with 1 or 3 other schools. But ND's hand is not being forced yet and they won't act until it is.
 
tweeterhawk said:
Should the superconference concept suddenly catch momentum, as I think it will in another year, then who else does the B1G bring in with Pitt and Mizzou off the market?
Click to expand...

They don't bring anyone. There's no reason to do so if it doesn't make the conference money. Going to 16 just because everyone else does it doesn't make any sense, and the Big Ten seems to recognize that.
 
The Big 10 has been and continues to be the most stable conference (along with the SEC) in the country. There is no reason to doubt them right now. If it were best to add Mizzou, they would have added them. I feel confident JD knows what he's doing and the Big 10 won't be "left behinid."
 
silvanthalas said:
Then you really haven't been paying attention.

1 - Two major media markets in Kansas City and St. Louis
2 - AAU member
Click to expand...

Neither of those are incentives to expand. Would adding MO/KC/STL raise the per-school conference distributions? Unlikely.

AAU is a nice quality, but its not an incentive to expand.

silvanthalas said:
And yet, we now have a 14-team ACC and a 13-(probably soon 14)-team SEC.

The Big Ten would go to 13 at the snap of a finger if Notre Dame wanted in.

We seem to be well on our way to 16-team super conferences.
Click to expand...

How does a 13 and 14 team league make 16 inevitable? Does not compute.

There was an incentive for SEC to take A&M. We're already seeing their difficulty finding an acceptable 14th team, and now you expect them to add a 15th and 16th?

Nebraska brought in a national brand and had the financial incentive of the conference title game. Their addition raised conference distributions. MO, RU, and others will not do that. There is no reason to add them. Just so we have 14 teams and play everyone else less often? You saw how difficult splitting the 12 into divisions was, but now they're gonna add schools simply because they are in the AAU?
 
DwayneTwill said:
DuffMan said:
I understand that Pitt wouldn't add $$ in the short term. I think that the additional geographic rivalries and their tradition make up for that. I'd be ok with a few hundred thousand less in TV money if it was for the betterment of the league as a whole. I think adding Pitt does that.
Click to expand...
How do those things better the league? Very few people across the country (and even in Pittsburgh) care about Pitt.
Click to expand...

It solidifies the B10 in the eastern time zone, it gives PState a traditional geographic rivalry and it gives the B10 a few more games to showcase nationally. Anything the B10 can do to showcase its traditional powers (Penn state, Nebraska, fOSU, scUM) is good for the league as a whole.
 
Adding additional teams to the conference dilutes the showcase events of the traditional powers, which is when they play each other.
 
ICHawk24 said:
Neither of those are incentives to expand. Would adding MO/KC/STL raise the per-school conference distributions? Unlikely.

AAU is a nice quality, but its not an incentive to expand.

How does a 13 and 14 team league make 16 inevitable? Does not compute.

There was an incentive for SEC to take A&M. We're already seeing their difficulty finding an acceptable 14th team, and now you expect them to add a 15th and 16th?

Nebraska brought in a national brand and had the financial incentive of the conference title game. Their addition raised conference distributions. MO, RU, and others will not do that. There is no reason to add them. Just so we have 14 teams and play everyone else less often? You saw how difficult splitting the 12 into divisions was, but now they're gonna add schools simply because they are in the AAU?
Click to expand...

We have already been through this, adding Missouri brings in the 21st & 31st largest market (combined top 5) in the country. That is a pretty big TV footprint that the BTN is adding. I do not think Missouri has to add to everyones contributions to become a member. Ideally we would probably just prefer Missouri stay in the B12 but if that is not an option then keep them from joining the SEC. Missouri joining the SEC hurts the Big Ten and Iowa by allowing the SEC to penetrate the midwest market and recruiting.
 
If expansion were a must, I would say that Mizzou would make a lot of sense. The combined media markets of STL/KC would be big revenue for the BTN, I would think.
 
I trust Jim Delany's analyze over yours any day Duffman. Pitt offers no additional value to the B10. No additional revenue increases to the existing members. Not in a growing population area. Not a big name draw to capture national audiences. They also do not fill their stadium (which isn't big) regularly. Mizzou is breakeven at best to the current members.

B1G will not add schools just to add schools, which is good business sense.
 
If they wanted Mizzou and didn't want the SEC to get them they could add a Rutgers or Maryland to go with them. Either one of those should pay for themselves as well. Then that still leaves two spots waiting for ND to finally choose a conference. Which if they took Rutgers and the Big 12 took a couple Big East it might make ND have to consider a conference.

Not that Rutgers does anything for me for what they bring to the table game wise, they have a lot of tv sets and if you look at the article was put out about fan demographics a few weeks ago. Why would the Big 10 need ND go get on NY cable? Rutgers was first and PSU 3rd & Mich. 5th in terms of fans in NYC. Shouldn't that be enough? I don't even know if that is supposed to include NJ tv sets or not.
 
The rivalry may have at one time been fierce between PSU and Pitt, but since PSU joined the Big 10, they have not and will not play Pitt. I don't think the Big 10 would invite Pitt because PSU basically has the state already wrapped up. I also like Pitt but it just ain't gonna happen. I also think Missouri would be a perfect fit for the Big 10. Natural rivalries with Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska.
 
NewMexHawk said:
The rivalry may have at one time been fierce between PSU and Pitt, but since PSU joined the Big 10, they have not and will not play Pitt. I don't think the Big 10 would invite Pitt because PSU basically has the state already wrapped up. I also like Pitt but it just ain't gonna happen. I also think Missouri would be a perfect fit for the Big 10. Natural rivalries with Iowa, Illinois, and Nebraska.
Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Pittsburgh Panthers, Penn State Nittany Lions to resume series in 2016 - ESPN

They have played each other 96 times, including as recently as 2000. That's a hell of a historic rivalry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top