I would like to formally thank Miller & Deace for being nearly the only intelligent thinking sport's media on the topic of Big Ten expansion. After reading Pat Forde's article (Big Ten expansion decisions fraught with peril - ESPN), some of the more recent posts on ESPN's Big Ten blog (I normally like Adam Rittenberg) and listening to Matt & Miller and Marty & McDermott last week (I ran out of Miller & Deace and B.S. Report podcasts to listen to) I feel that Miller & Deace haven't gotten enough credit for their analysis on the topic.
From introducing topics such as Big Ten cable contract dollars, local avails (no one but them are talking about this) and research dollars into their discussion they are taking a look at the big picture more than any other sport's media member or outlet. Especially in the national media, there appears to be no one considering Nebraska v. OSU won't fundamentally change your ESPN contract, but getting Missouri causes cable providers to switch the Big Ten Network to basic cable adding 20 million dollars in additional yearly revenue, not including advertising money. It doesn't even matter if nationally twice as many people will watch the Nebraska v. OSU game over the Missouri v. OSU game. The example I like best is that even if you never watch Lifetime Network personally, you still are paying to have the channel if you like it or not.
Local avails are also huge. My dad (who lives in Illinois) was watching the NW v. Iowa game last year and got different commercials than I did in Iowa. Advertisers (now more than just Rotel) want to put their products where local consumers can purchase them. Companies like Ameren, CoxHealth & World Wide Technologies (Missouri) and Foster Wheeler, Honeywell & Pathmark Stores (Tri-State) would be chomping at the bit to get advertising space on the Big Ten Network if the channel is on basic cable in their operation areas.
Research funding is huge to the Big Ten. The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (Big Ten + University of Chicago) released that the consortia discharged 6 billion in research dollars last year. That dwarfs the television contracts and advertising dollars football brings in. If anyone questions why the University of Texas faculty would jump foot first into joining the Big Ten, you can now see the reason. One clarifying point I would like to make to Miller & Deace's analysis is that getting research funding is extremely difficult in today's academic climate. Sometimes I feel Steve & Jon let their right-of-center beliefs get the best of themselves on the issue (Steve more than Jon), but they do still get the majority of the topic correctly. It isn't simply that having Maryland close to D.C. gets you the grant dollars, it is what a collaboration between universities gets you. Senators and Representatives don't typically get you research dollars (sometimes line-items in big spending bills can go towards research), but an overwhelming majority of dollars come from grant applications. Having the CIC allows for pooled resources and equipment sharing that allows for better grant applications and a better chance for funding. An example is that the University of Iowa does not have a multi-photon confocal microscope (at least it didn't when I was there), but other universities like Minnesota and Wisconsin do. The CIC can be instrumental in helping to foster the contacts that would allow researchers from Iowa to work with Minnesota and Wisconsin to get approval to use their equipment, bettering the grant applications leading to funding and better research.
Regardless of this correction, Miller & Deace are doing a fantastic job and I hope they continue to do the astute analysis on the Big Ten Expansion topic as well as other topics that makes them a worthwhile listen.
From introducing topics such as Big Ten cable contract dollars, local avails (no one but them are talking about this) and research dollars into their discussion they are taking a look at the big picture more than any other sport's media member or outlet. Especially in the national media, there appears to be no one considering Nebraska v. OSU won't fundamentally change your ESPN contract, but getting Missouri causes cable providers to switch the Big Ten Network to basic cable adding 20 million dollars in additional yearly revenue, not including advertising money. It doesn't even matter if nationally twice as many people will watch the Nebraska v. OSU game over the Missouri v. OSU game. The example I like best is that even if you never watch Lifetime Network personally, you still are paying to have the channel if you like it or not.
Local avails are also huge. My dad (who lives in Illinois) was watching the NW v. Iowa game last year and got different commercials than I did in Iowa. Advertisers (now more than just Rotel) want to put their products where local consumers can purchase them. Companies like Ameren, CoxHealth & World Wide Technologies (Missouri) and Foster Wheeler, Honeywell & Pathmark Stores (Tri-State) would be chomping at the bit to get advertising space on the Big Ten Network if the channel is on basic cable in their operation areas.
Research funding is huge to the Big Ten. The Committee on Institutional Cooperation (Big Ten + University of Chicago) released that the consortia discharged 6 billion in research dollars last year. That dwarfs the television contracts and advertising dollars football brings in. If anyone questions why the University of Texas faculty would jump foot first into joining the Big Ten, you can now see the reason. One clarifying point I would like to make to Miller & Deace's analysis is that getting research funding is extremely difficult in today's academic climate. Sometimes I feel Steve & Jon let their right-of-center beliefs get the best of themselves on the issue (Steve more than Jon), but they do still get the majority of the topic correctly. It isn't simply that having Maryland close to D.C. gets you the grant dollars, it is what a collaboration between universities gets you. Senators and Representatives don't typically get you research dollars (sometimes line-items in big spending bills can go towards research), but an overwhelming majority of dollars come from grant applications. Having the CIC allows for pooled resources and equipment sharing that allows for better grant applications and a better chance for funding. An example is that the University of Iowa does not have a multi-photon confocal microscope (at least it didn't when I was there), but other universities like Minnesota and Wisconsin do. The CIC can be instrumental in helping to foster the contacts that would allow researchers from Iowa to work with Minnesota and Wisconsin to get approval to use their equipment, bettering the grant applications leading to funding and better research.
Regardless of this correction, Miller & Deace are doing a fantastic job and I hope they continue to do the astute analysis on the Big Ten Expansion topic as well as other topics that makes them a worthwhile listen.
