tweeterhawk
Well-Known Member
The tens thousands of Hawkeye fans living in the tri-state area of Conn/NY/NJ would love to travel shorter distances to root for our team.
Last edited:
Big 10 Expansion: Omaha Radio Station
- Thread starter StickUP
- Start date
The tens thousands of Hawkeye fans living in the tri-state area of Conn/NY/NJ would love to travel shorter distances to root for our team.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
People its more than ratings. Adding Rutgers means the B10 network will be availalbe to the 10 million living in NYC and the nearly 9 million who live in Jersey. The B10 network gets about $1 for each household that carrys the network. Adding those two areas would generate millions of dollars anually for the B10 regardless of how many people actually watch the games.
Palpatine
Well-Known Member
It's also research $$$.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
1) They would bring in the two largest tv markets in Missouri, don't kid yourself about what the BTN would demand from the cable companies because they have been sucessful getting their product where they want it so far.
2) Adding these two markets to the BTN would generate millions more in revenue for the BTN and every Big Ten team.
3) What does a team getting passed over for a bowl game by ISU have to do with anything? So they don't follow their team to bowl games, this expansion isn't about that.
Hawk123456
Active Member
Jon, for the benefit of the Iowa program, I would really like to see Missouri added. However, it doesn't seem like many Iowa fans understand the benefit of adding Missouri.
Iowa currently gets the largest numbers of our players from Iowa and Illinois. Missouri being a large population state with only one BCS college is, like Illinois, a net exporter of high school recruits. Currently the top high school recruits in Missouri who don't go to their home state school tend to go to other Big 12 schools in adjoining states. For instance, despite sharing a much longer border with Missouri, there are only 3 Missouri kids on Iowa's roster versus 9 on Nebraska's (I am including 2 kids from the Kansas suburbs of Kansas City, Missouri as they are in the Missouri media market).
Adding Missouri to the Big 10 would cause these kids to grow up wanting to play in the Big Ten, and would open up Missouri recruiting to Iowa in a big way. It would be like adding a brand new state of Illinois at our southern border. It would be huge for Iowa. Do you agree?
83Hawk
Banned
I don't care how big the market is....Rutgers does not "fit" into the Big 10 nor do they belong there.
Personally I think the expansion should be Notre Dame or nobody. Since that is likely not going to happen, I agree that adding more than 3 teams would ruin the Big 10 (even adding 3 teams ruins it IMO).
If it MUST be 3 teams and Notre Dame is not available, the best 3 (in terms of "fit" and being in Big 10 country) would be:
1. Nebraska
2. Missouri
.
.
.
.
.
.
3. Pitt
Personally I think the expansion should be Notre Dame or nobody. Since that is likely not going to happen, I agree that adding more than 3 teams would ruin the Big 10 (even adding 3 teams ruins it IMO).
If it MUST be 3 teams and Notre Dame is not available, the best 3 (in terms of "fit" and being in Big 10 country) would be:
1. Nebraska
2. Missouri
.
.
.
.
.
.
3. Pitt
tweeterhawk
Well-Known Member
Fail. The B10 Network already is available from most cable providers in the NJ/NY area. The increase in viewership will take place when Rutgers plays the other B10 schools.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
Win. It's available but it's on the "sports tier" for almost everyone. With Rutgers in the league it will be on every digital set in the NYC/NJ area like it is for the rest of B10 country.
tweeterhawk
Well-Known Member
You don't know Rutgers, do you? High level of research funding, higher level of academic achievement. RU athletics is not quite Northwestern quality but improving. Within a few years Rutgers will be at B10 level of play.
From an athletics standpoint Pitt would be a much better addition to the conference. They can compete right away.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
Yes it is, but it is part of a sports package because the NY/NJ area doesn't have a Big Ten team, states with a Big Ten team have the BTN on basic cable (required by the BTN to be able to carry it) and the price difference is huge to the cable companies. I think in the states without a Big Ten team the BTN cost is around 10 cents to air the channel on a sports tier and states with a Big Ten team it cost around 70 cents on basic cable.
The population of NJ is around 8.7 million so take that 8.7 million and multiply by 60 cents and that is an additional $5.2 million a MONTH for the BTN.
DuffMan
Well-Known Member
You are confusing population with "households" so the math is not correct but the premise is 100% correct.
hawkeyescott
Well-Known Member
Good point as there isn't 8.7 million cable subscribers in NJ, so the easy way of saying it is more people in NJ would be paying for the BTN even if they don't watch it by putting it on basic cable instead of the one's getting it on a sports tier right now. The dollars are a little high but it would still result in millions of additional dollars over the course of a year.
83Hawk
Banned
I don't give a crap about their academics. The academics at Ivy League schools are good, too but that doesn't mean Harvard and Columbia should be in the Big 10! (I'm not saying academics aren't important in deciding which schools to add..they are)
Within a few years Rutgers will be at Big 10 level of athletics in what? The only two that really matter are football and basketball. Women's BB...is certainly Big 10 level. Men's BB? Nope. Football? Rutgers has had a few good years (playing weak teams)....but they would routinely finish at the bottom of the standings in the Big 10.
Do we really need another Northwestern in the Big 10?
I agree Pitt makes more sense, but I am fundamentally opposed to them because I don't consider Pennsylvania to be in "Big 10 country". And yes, I opposed adding Penn State back in the day.
But that is just my opinion.
Last edited:
Palpatine
Well-Known Member
See post on other thread http://www.hawkeyenation.com/forum/rivalry-forum/10074-big-ten-news.html#post126661
Mizzou
Nebraska
If not ND, then Rutgers, and you have 14
or
Mizzou
Nebraska
Rutgers
ND
One more, and you have 16
Mizzou
Nebraska
If not ND, then Rutgers, and you have 14
or
Mizzou
Nebraska
Rutgers
ND
One more, and you have 16
Last edited:
EastLosRandy
Well-Known Member
Speaking of net exporters of recruits, I believe a very similar argument can be made for Rutgers. I think they're also a good regional rival/sidekick for PSU.
hwkwyld
Well-Known Member
This made me laugh because NOBODY meets Cal or Stanford's academic standards. These are two of the premier Academic Institutions in the Country. That being said you bring up a very good point about the Political aspect of these two schools. Colorado is a great fit based on this theory. The only other School in the area that is close to these schools based on that theory is Boise State and even they are a bit conservative.
I'm so excited for the expansion. It's going to be fun to watch all of this play out!
Hawk123456
Active Member
I agree about New Jersey being a net exporter of recruits, but adding Rutgers isn't going to help Iowa recruiting like adding Missouri will help. I know that historically we have had some recruiting success in New Jersey, but it is much, much easier to recruit in an adjoining state (assuming the kids in that state grow up wanting to play in your conference). Within the next few years Missouri will become a second Illinois for Iowa recruiting.
(Note that Iowa currently has 12 Illinois kids on the roster and only 3 Missouri kids. Once Missouri kids grow up wanting to play in the Big Ten, I would imagine the Missouri number will rise to be about the same as the Illinois number. In other words, adding Missouri to the Big Ten should mean that Iowa eventually should see the addition of 8 or 9 Missouri kids to the roster.)
