CatsClaw Wrote:

army56mike Wrote:If Mizzou went to the Big Televen are you sure they would gain the Kansas City market? KC is only a few miles from Kansas U. Maybe they have a bunch of fans there, though it is another state.

The Big Ten doesn't want Pitt or Syracuse because they feel they don't need the New York market and Pitt only adds a rival for Penn State,

So, if they are successful in their launch of the Big Ten Network, they will want no part of New York City? Or upstate New York? Hmmm... I would have thought the very fact that they are launching their own network would indicate how important $$$ are too them, but I guess that is simply me.

Or perhaps you didn't realize that upstate New York from Albany to Buffalo and from Binghamton on up to the Canadian border totals more TV households than the entire state of Missouri?

Or that total for upstate New York is about a third of the total number of TVHH in the New York City area?

This new era that may be starting with a successful launch of a BTN is likely to change everything. We can only hope Comcast and TW put the breaks on it somehow.

For those with eyes to see, almost every move the Big Ten has made since the late 80s has been designed to get two prizes - Notre Dame and New York City and in the process protect their current biggest prizes, Chicago and Philadelphia. Detroit, their third biggest prize, needs no protection.

Quote:and, to be blunt, the Big Ten couldn't care less if Penn State was given a travel partner.

First, it's not about a travel partner - the Big Ten isn't the Pac-10.

It's about a 'significant rival' for Penn State so that the Nits can feel they are on the same level as Michigan-Ohio State. And only ND will accomplish that. Not Pitt, not Syracuse, and not Rutgers

Again, your comments on this topic now and in the past show the typical Ohio fan perspective that I, as a Big East fan, am counting on winning the day in the Big Ten.

Without Penn State, their BTN would be less in terms of total value than a potential ACC Network, no less an SEC one. Eight states are better than seven, especially when one of those states is Pennsylvania. And without Penn State, the revenue sharing in terms of ticket sales for conference games will decrease as well.

Of course, the Nits have become such wimps that it wouldn;t surprise me if this attitude doesn't pervade the entire Big Ten. Again, I can only hope it does.

Up until now, they've been stalling with, "Be patient, Notre Dame will eventually come - they'll be your marquee rival game"

Quote:The only reason the Big Ten would add Rutgers is because of academics. But the Big Ten is an arrogant conference, and as good as the above mentioned programs are the Big Ten is only going to add a new midwest market or Notre Dame.

If they don't get Notre Dame within the next few years, they will never get them, imho. And unfortunately for Pitt, while probably the logical choice, the potential new realities of the changing college landscape will mean if they can't get ND and want to get more $$$ to stay ahead of the other conferences, they will likely add Rutgers, Syracuse, or Missouri.

So, for you, that leaves Missouri or no one, I guess. Fine, you're entitled to that opinion.

In the meantime, you won't mind if I hope Big East officials and Big East football presidents are sizing up the situation and making contingency plans for what to do should the Big Ten come after one of their schools or if the ACC should try another end-around, will you?

I'd rather not see the conference go through again, what it went through in 2003 and 2004.

I'm sure you can relate - the Metro, the Great Midwest, C-USA. Maybe you're immune to it by now, but I'd rather not go through it again.

Cheers,
Neil

KC is probably 50% KU, 25% MU, 15% K-State, 5% Nebraska, 5% assorted schools. So, yes, MU does have enough of a hold on KC for it to matter to the Big 10. As far as St. Louis goes, the Big 10 already has a portion of its market with Illinois. Obviously, Mizzou would make that much stronger.

bitcruncher Wrote:I could care less what Lee Corso says. He's usually wrong.

he has never been the same since memphis state beat him retarded during his lousiville tenure.

THROW IN THE TOWEL, LEE!!!!! THROW IT!!!!!!!

omnicarrier Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

army56mike Wrote:If Mizzou went to the Big Televen are you sure they would gain the Kansas City market? KC is only a few miles from Kansas U. Maybe they have a bunch of fans there, though it is another state.

The Big Ten doesn't want Pitt or Syracuse because they feel they don't need the New York market and Pitt only adds a rival for Penn State,

So, if they are successful in their launch of the Big Ten Network, they will want no part of New York City? Or upstate New York? Hmmm... I would have thought the very fact that they are launching their own network would indicate how important $$$ are too them, but I guess that is simply me.

Or perhaps you didn't realize that upstate New York from Albany to Buffalo and from Binghamton on up to the Canadian border totals more TV households than the entire state of Missouri?

Or that total for upstate New York is about a third of the total number of TVHH in the New York City area?

This new era that may be starting with a successful launch of a BTN is likely to change everything. We can only hope Comcast and TW put the breaks on it somehow.

For those with eyes to see, almost every move the Big Ten has made since the late 80s has been designed to get two prizes - Notre Dame and New York City and in the process protect their current biggest prizes, Chicago and Philadelphia. Detroit, their third biggest prize, needs no protection.

Quote:and, to be blunt, the Big Ten couldn't care less if Penn State was given a travel partner.

First, it's not about a travel partner - the Big Ten isn't the Pac-10.

It's about a 'significant rival' for Penn State so that the Nits can feel they are on the same level as Michigan-Ohio State. And only ND will accomplish that. Not Pitt, not Syracuse, and not Rutgers

Again, your comments on this topic now and in the past show the typical Ohio fan perspective that I, as a Big East fan, am counting on winning the day in the Big Ten.

Without Penn State, their BTN would be less in terms of total value than a potential ACC Network, no less an SEC one. Eight states are better than seven, especially when one of those states is Pennsylvania. And without Penn State, the revenue sharing in terms of ticket sales for conference games will decrease as well.

Of course, the Nits have become such wimps that it wouldn;t surprise me if this attitude doesn't pervade the entire Big Ten. Again, I can only hope it does.

Up until now, they've been stalling with, "Be patient, Notre Dame will eventually come - they'll be your marquee rival game"

Quote:The only reason the Big Ten would add Rutgers is because of academics. But the Big Ten is an arrogant conference, and as good as the above mentioned programs are the Big Ten is only going to add a new midwest market or Notre Dame.

If they don't get Notre Dame within the next few years, they will never get them, imho. And unfortunately for Pitt, while probably the logical choice, the potential new realities of the changing college landscape will mean if they can't get ND and want to get more $$$ to stay ahead of the other conferences, they will likely add Rutgers, Syracuse, or Missouri.

So, for you, that leaves Missouri or no one, I guess. Fine, you're entitled to that opinion.

In the meantime, you won't mind if I hope Big East officials and Big East football presidents are sizing up the situation and making contingency plans for what to do should the Big Ten come after one of their schools or if the ACC should try another end-around, will you?

I'd rather not see the conference go through again, what it went through in 2003 and 2004.

I'm sure you can relate - the Metro, the Great Midwest, C-USA. Maybe you're immune to it by now, but I'd rather not go through it again.

Cheers,
Neil

Excellent post! Which is why I hope the BE is at least trying to be proactive in figuring out ways the conference can move forward.

aTxTIGER Wrote:

bitcruncher Wrote:I could care less what Lee Corso says. He's usually wrong.

he has never been the same since memphis state beat him retarded during his lousiville tenure.

THROW IN THE TOWEL, LEE!!!!! THROW IT!!!!!!!

Corso doomed any hope of a true national championship playoff last night on ESPN's College Football Preview show when he predicted it will happen.

Although it may happen in spite of him. We'll see in the near future.

omnicarrier Wrote:

CatsClaw Wrote:

army56mike Wrote:If Mizzou went to the Big Televen are you sure they would gain the Kansas City market? KC is only a few miles from Kansas U. Maybe they have a bunch of fans there, though it is another state.

The Big Ten doesn't want Pitt or Syracuse because they feel they don't need the New York market and Pitt only adds a rival for Penn State,

So, if they are successful in their launch of the Big Ten Network, they will want no part of New York City? Or upstate New York? Hmmm... I would have thought the very fact that they are launching their own network would indicate how important $$$ are too them, but I guess that is simply me.

Or perhaps you didn't realize that upstate New York from Albany to Buffalo and from Binghamton on up to the Canadian border totals more TV households than the entire state of Missouri?

Or that total for upstate New York is about a third of the total number of TVHH in the New York City area?

This new era that may be starting with a successful launch of a BTN is likely to change everything. We can only hope Comcast and TW put the breaks on it somehow.

For those with eyes to see, almost every move the Big Ten has made since the late 80s has been designed to get two prizes - Notre Dame and New York City and in the process protect their current biggest prizes, Chicago and Philadelphia. Detroit, their third biggest prize, needs no protection.

Quote:and, to be blunt, the Big Ten couldn't care less if Penn State was given a travel partner.

First, it's not about a travel partner - the Big Ten isn't the Pac-10.

It's about a 'significant rival' for Penn State so that the Nits can feel they are on the same level as Michigan-Ohio State. And only ND will accomplish that. Not Pitt, not Syracuse, and not Rutgers

Again, your comments on this topic now and in the past show the typical Ohio fan perspective that I, as a Big East fan, am counting on winning the day in the Big Ten.

Without Penn State, their BTN would be less in terms of total value than a potential ACC Network, no less an SEC one. Eight states are better than seven, especially when one of those states is Pennsylvania. And without Penn State, the revenue sharing in terms of ticket sales for conference games will decrease as well.

Of course, the Nits have become such wimps that it wouldn;t surprise me if this attitude doesn't pervade the entire Big Ten. Again, I can only hope it does.

Up until now, they've been stalling with, "Be patient, Notre Dame will eventually come - they'll be your marquee rival game"

Quote:The only reason the Big Ten would add Rutgers is because of academics. But the Big Ten is an arrogant conference, and as good as the above mentioned programs are the Big Ten is only going to add a new midwest market or Notre Dame.

If they don't get Notre Dame within the next few years, they will never get them, imho. And unfortunately for Pitt, while probably the logical choice, the potential new realities of the changing college landscape will mean if they can't get ND and want to get more $$$ to stay ahead of the other conferences, they will likely add Rutgers, Syracuse, or Missouri.

So, for you, that leaves Missouri or no one, I guess. Fine, you're entitled to that opinion.

In the meantime, you won't mind if I hope Big East officials and Big East football presidents are sizing up the situation and making contingency plans for what to do should the Big Ten come after one of their schools or if the ACC should try another end-around, will you?

I'd rather not see the conference go through again, what it went through in 2003 and 2004.

I'm sure you can relate - the Metro, the Great Midwest, C-USA. Maybe you're immune to it by now, but I'd rather not go through it again.

Cheers,
Neil

I'm going on what I heard from Big Ten administrators several years ago. And they didn't want Syracuse because they weren't interested in the market, and they didn't want Pitt because they considered it an overlapping market. In September or October of 2003 Syracuse and Pitt actively and aggressively petitioned to get into the Big Ten and the same concerned were raised to both programs and they were politely turned down. The Big Ten TV Network means nothing. I mean really, whether or not people believe me is of no concern to me. You can argue with me all you want. But that is the reason that Syracuse and Pitt aren't in the Big Ten.

CatsClaw Wrote:I'm going on what I heard from Big Ten administrators several years ago. And they didn't want Syracuse because they weren't interested in the market, and they didn't want Pitt because they considered it an overlapping market. In September or October of 2003 Syracuse and Pitt actively and aggressively petitioned to get into the Big Ten and the same concerned were raised to both programs and they were politely turned down. The Big Ten TV Network means nothing. I mean really, whether or not people believe me is of no concern to me. You can argue with me all you want. But that is the reason that Syracuse and Pitt aren't in the Big Ten.

If the BTN is a flop it will mean nothing. If it's a success, there is the potential for it to have domino effects that are far reaching. Again, for those with eyes to see.

Cheers,
Neil