https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

(09-20-2018 07:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

Interesting perspective, and it is definitely a football-centric view. I agree with him that Nebraska and Maryland would be fine in a contraction situation, but Rutgers would fight it to the end. I think a more likely event in the foreseeable future is the biggest dogs, like Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State, joining a national conference that leaves the mid-tiers behind. That would be dramatic and drastic, but I see it as more likely than them contracting teams. Nevertheless, even a blogger with that sentiment is interesting. We toss around scenarios for schools coming and going, but it is always with a wink and a nod that it would only happen if the situation was better for one of our members. I can't remember anyone significant mentioning that a current SEC member should go and not wish them well.

(09-20-2018 08:01 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 07:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

Interesting perspective, and it is definitely a football-centric view. I agree with him that Nebraska and Maryland would be fine in a contraction situation, but Rutgers would fight it to the end. I think a more likely event in the foreseeable future is the biggest dogs, like Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Penn State, joining a national conference that leaves the mid-tiers behind. That would be dramatic and drastic, but I see it as more likely than them contracting teams. Nevertheless, even a blogger with that sentiment is interesting. We toss around scenarios for schools coming and going, but it is always with a wink and a nod that it would only happen if the situation was better for one of our members. I can't remember anyone significant mentioning that a current SEC member should go and not wish them well.

i have often pondered what might happen if the SEC moved to 16 with Texas and Oklahoma, to 18 with Florida State and Clemson, and then to 24 with Iowa, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State and Wisconsin.

It seems to me that that 24 team conference would be the national conference and we could pull it off better than anyone.

(09-20-2018 07:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

I don't think the Big Ten would contract, but it's hard to argue with his analysis.

(09-20-2018 10:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 07:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

I don't think the Big Ten would contract, but it's hard to argue with his analysis.

Well the SEC landed Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and South Carolina. That's 3 state flagship schools with large passionate fan bases and all of them are usually competitive although Missouri had a 3 year dip after Pinkel and Arkansas is at a low right now.

All four of our additions do fit in one way or the other. All of them do well with attendance, Missouri a little less so.

But look at the Big 10. They have two stadium fillers in Nebraska and Penn State, but Nebraska is struggling. Then their last two additions make no sense in what will become a content driven world. They have sparse to horrible crowds. They have precious little in the way of other compensating sports, at least in revenue generators. And they don't have large followings unless they are winning which they show no signs of doing. In short as the pay model changes both will become a drain on Big 10 resources.

At least in the SEC if we add nobody else we are fine at 14, profitable at 14, and everyone contributes something.

I'd say that what went unsaid is that the Big 10 may have a tough time attracting other big name programs with what will be two boat anchors on the roster.

I like our situation much much better than theirs.

(09-20-2018 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 10:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 07:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

I don't think the Big Ten would contract, but it's hard to argue with his analysis.

Well the SEC landed Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and South Carolina. That's 3 state flagship schools with large passionate fan bases and all of them are usually competitive although Missouri had a 3 year dip after Pinkel and Arkansas is at a low right now.

All four of our additions do fit in one way or the other. All of them do well with attendance, Missouri a little less so.

But look at the Big 10. They have two stadium fillers in Nebraska and Penn State, but Nebraska is struggling. Then their last two additions make no sense in what will become a content driven world. They have sparse to horrible crowds. They have precious little in the way of other compensating sports, at least in revenue generators. And they don't have large followings unless they are winning which they show no signs of doing. In short as the pay model changes both will become a drain on Big 10 resources.

At least in the SEC if we add nobody else we are fine at 14, profitable at 14, and everyone contributes something.

I'd say that what went unsaid is that the Big 10 may have a tough time attracting other big name programs with what will be two boat anchors on the roster.

I like our situation much much better than theirs.

This suggests other conferences can work with Big Ten schools to persuade Delaney to loosen his demands on Division play in athletic conferences.

(09-21-2018 01:41 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 10:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 07:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

I don't think the Big Ten would contract, but it's hard to argue with his analysis.

Well the SEC landed Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and South Carolina. That's 3 state flagship schools with large passionate fan bases and all of them are usually competitive although Missouri had a 3 year dip after Pinkel and Arkansas is at a low right now.

All four of our additions do fit in one way or the other. All of them do well with attendance, Missouri a little less so.

But look at the Big 10. They have two stadium fillers in Nebraska and Penn State, but Nebraska is struggling. Then their last two additions make no sense in what will become a content driven world. They have sparse to horrible crowds. They have precious little in the way of other compensating sports, at least in revenue generators. And they don't have large followings unless they are winning which they show no signs of doing. In short as the pay model changes both will become a drain on Big 10 resources.

At least in the SEC if we add nobody else we are fine at 14, profitable at 14, and everyone contributes something.

I'd say that what went unsaid is that the Big 10 may have a tough time attracting other big name programs with what will be two boat anchors on the roster.

I like our situation much much better than theirs.

This suggests other conferences can work with Big Ten schools to persuade Delaney to loosen his demands on Division play in athletic conferences.

That's an excellent catch murrdcu. I can see the SEC and ACC making headway if we can do that.

But it does make me suspicious about the Big 10's seriousness over Oklahoma. They could become another Nebraska, and I think that's going to be in the backs of their minds.

(09-21-2018 02:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2018 01:41 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 10:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 07:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

I don't think the Big Ten would contract, but it's hard to argue with his analysis.

Well the SEC landed Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and South Carolina. That's 3 state flagship schools with large passionate fan bases and all of them are usually competitive although Missouri had a 3 year dip after Pinkel and Arkansas is at a low right now.

All four of our additions do fit in one way or the other. All of them do well with attendance, Missouri a little less so.

But look at the Big 10. They have two stadium fillers in Nebraska and Penn State, but Nebraska is struggling. Then their last two additions make no sense in what will become a content driven world. They have sparse to horrible crowds. They have precious little in the way of other compensating sports, at least in revenue generators. And they don't have large followings unless they are winning which they show no signs of doing. In short as the pay model changes both will become a drain on Big 10 resources.

At least in the SEC if we add nobody else we are fine at 14, profitable at 14, and everyone contributes something.

I'd say that what went unsaid is that the Big 10 may have a tough time attracting other big name programs with what will be two boat anchors on the roster.

I like our situation much much better than theirs.

This suggests other conferences can work with Big Ten schools to persuade Delaney to loosen his demands on Division play in athletic conferences.

That's an excellent catch murrdcu. I can see the SEC and ACC making headway if we can do that.

But it does make me suspicious about the Big 10's seriousness over Oklahoma. They could become another Nebraska, and I think that's going to be in the backs of their minds.

OU recruited Texas well before joining the Big 12. As long as they keep that Texas matchup at the fairgrounds, OU’s recruiting will be fine.

Nebraska needs the right head coach leading them and time to recruit their way out of their problems.

I think the comparison between Nebraska and Oklahoma is an interesting one.

In the old days, they were both national powers competing for championships and prestige. I imagine that this more than anything is what made their rivalry great.

I do think Nebraska's issues are much deeper. Even before joining the Big Ten, NU had fallen off the pace quite a bit. It's been nearly 20 years since they've been nationally relevant. Some would say the discontinuation of their walk-on practices along with the partial-qualifier rule is what did them in. I'm sure that contributed, but it's also true that plenty of other schools do fine under the same circumstances so what's the deal with Nebraska?

For one, they're located very far from any natural recruiting base. Two, being in the Great Plains means they have some very harsh weather at certain times of year so it's harder to get recruits to relocate. Joining the Big Ten actually exacerbated these issues because they distanced themselves even further from any traditional recruiting grounds. Their connections in the B1G states and East Coast, I'm sure, weren't well developed. Apparently, that hasn't changed since 2011 when they joined the league.

They've also made some big mistakes in the coaching arena. They probably should have kept Frank Solich, but he wasn't as good as Tom Osborne and so he was ushered out. Those sort of standards seem foolish in hindsight.

I have no clue why they hired Bill Callahan. Bo Pelini wasn't a bad coach and his winning percentage wasn't much lower than Solich. He wasn't a great fit although who knows if things would have been different had the faithful been more realistic with their expectations. The hire of Mike Riley is just as mysterious now as it was then. Time will tell if Scott Frost can right the ship to any significant degree. He's the only real hire they've made recently that was sought after by other schools.

I don't know what they're recruiting budget is, but it's probably not enough. One thing is for certain, if you want players to be attracted to your program then you don't need to change identities every 3 or 4 years. They either need to sell out for the pro style game and just try to get the best players they can or they need to say "screw it" and go for something like the run and shoot where they can focus on coaching technique to lesser athletes. A guy like Mike Leach wouldn't fit at NU, but they could find someone with a decent pedigree. The days of the triple option are over most likely as physicality is being deemphasized. That and you won't get halfway decent athletes to go to a program like that. Point being, decide who you are and stop trying to relive the glory days.

I don't think Oklahoma would fall that far in the Big Ten. They have more advantages and have maintained relevance throughout the same period of history. I believe they would take a step back playing a B1G schedule, but I don't think they would be relegated to the dust bin of history.

Their biggest problem would be generating excitement and getting subsequent donations...

Their greatest desire, however, in looking at the B1G would be a long shot in fulfillment. Growing their academic profile won't happen by playing B1G schools in athletics. Academic growth must be organic no matter how much Presidents worry about perception.

(09-21-2018 07:45 AM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I think the comparison between Nebraska and Oklahoma is an interesting one.

In the old days, they were both national powers competing for championships and prestige. I imagine that this more than anything is what made their rivalry great.

I do think Nebraska's issues are much deeper. Even before joining the Big Ten, NU had fallen off the pace quite a bit. It's been nearly 20 years since they've been nationally relevant. Some would say the discontinuation of their walk-on practices along with the partial-qualifier rule is what did them in. I'm sure that contributed, but it's also true that plenty of other schools do fine under the same circumstances so what's the deal with Nebraska?

For one, they're located very far from any natural recruiting base. Two, being in the Great Plains means they have some very harsh weather at certain times of year so it's harder to get recruits to relocate. Joining the Big Ten actually exacerbated these issues because they distanced themselves even further from any traditional recruiting grounds. Their connections in the B1G states and East Coast, I'm sure, weren't well developed. Apparently, that hasn't changed since 2011 when they joined the league.

They've also made some big mistakes in the coaching arena. They probably should have kept Frank Solich, but he wasn't as good as Tom Osborne and so he was ushered out. Those sort of standards seem foolish in hindsight.

I have no clue why they hired Bill Callahan. Bo Pelini wasn't a bad coach and his winning percentage wasn't much lower than Solich. He wasn't a great fit although who knows if things would have been different had the faithful been more realistic with their expectations. The hire of Mike Riley is just as mysterious now as it was then. Time will tell if Scott Frost can right the ship to any significant degree. He's the only real hire they've made recently that was sought after by other schools.

I don't know what they're recruiting budget is, but it's probably not enough. One thing is for certain, if you want players to be attracted to your program then you don't need to change identities every 3 or 4 years. They either need to sell out for the pro style game and just try to get the best players they can or they need to say "screw it" and go for something like the run and shoot where they can focus on coaching technique to lesser athletes. A guy like Mike Leach wouldn't fit at NU, but they could find someone with a decent pedigree. The days of the triple option are over most likely as physicality is being deemphasized. That and you won't get halfway decent athletes to go to a program like that. Point being, decide who you are and stop trying to relive the glory days.

I don't think Oklahoma would fall that far in the Big Ten. They have more advantages and have maintained relevance throughout the same period of history. I believe they would take a step back playing a B1G schedule, but I don't think they would be relegated to the dust bin of history.

Their biggest problem would be generating excitement and getting subsequent donations...

Their greatest desire, however, in looking at the B1G would be a long shot in fulfillment. Growing their academic profile won't happen by playing B1G schools in athletics. Academic growth must be organic no matter how much Presidents worry about perception.

All of that and the sneaky part of this article was that Nebaska's baseball was killed by joining the Big 10. Oklahoma's baseball and softball would indeed suffer the same fate and part of their sports identity is centered in diamond sports.

Frankly, I have long believed the ACC and BIG should have stayed out of the northeast. Penn State in the BIG, that fits. Maryland should have stayed in the ACC. Rutgers is not a good fit for the BIG.
Nebraska in the BIG is OK, but it is not the 70s anymore with unlimited scholarships. They recruited California before, then Texas. Everybody hits Florida. They have to figure it out, and find new strategies. Va Tech and Miami in the ACC were good moves. ACC should have added WVU also. Pitt marginally OK for ACC, but would be more valued if WVU is included. BC and Syracuse are not the best ACC fits.

(09-21-2018 12:36 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Frankly, I have long believed the ACC and BIG should have stayed out of the northeast. Penn State in the BIG, that fits. Maryland should have stayed in the ACC. Rutgers is not a good fit for the BIG.
Nebraska in the BIG is OK, but it is not the 70s anymore with unlimited scholarships. They recruited California before, then Texas. Everybody hits Florida. They have to figure it out, and find new strategies. Va Tech and Miami in the ACC were good moves. ACC should have added WVU also. Pitt marginally OK for ACC, but would be more valued if WVU is included. BC and Syracuse are not the best ACC fits.

I always thought the ACC should have tried to stay more compact....

Virginia Tech, Miami, and West Virginia should have been the schools they took to move to 12. I don't think Maryland would have left and they might have had some opportunities down the line to pick up some stronger brands like Notre Dame.

Adding the Northeastern schools was enough to give the ACC a slight bump, but not enough to move them out of the bottom spot among Power leagues. Those aren't great markets for college sports. If the ACC had built a network several years ago then it might have been different, but the ACC is late to the party on taking advantage of the market model. The fact that Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston College don't have large fan bases will end up hurting their bottom line.

(09-21-2018 01:01 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-21-2018 12:36 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Frankly, I have long believed the ACC and BIG should have stayed out of the northeast. Penn State in the BIG, that fits. Maryland should have stayed in the ACC. Rutgers is not a good fit for the BIG.
Nebraska in the BIG is OK, but it is not the 70s anymore with unlimited scholarships. They recruited California before, then Texas. Everybody hits Florida. They have to figure it out, and find new strategies. Va Tech and Miami in the ACC were good moves. ACC should have added WVU also. Pitt marginally OK for ACC, but would be more valued if WVU is included. BC and Syracuse are not the best ACC fits.

I always thought the ACC should have tried to stay more compact....

Virginia Tech, Miami, and West Virginia should have been the schools they took to move to 12. I don't think Maryland would have left and they might have had some opportunities down the line to pick up some stronger brands like Notre Dame.

Adding the Northeastern schools was enough to give the ACC a slight bump, but not enough to move them out of the bottom spot among Power leagues. Those aren't great markets for college sports. If the ACC had built a network several years ago then it might have been different, but the ACC is late to the party on taking advantage of the market model. The fact that Pittsburgh, Syracuse, and Boston College don't have large fan bases will end up hurting their bottom line.

The problem with the ACC is that it is a Frankenstein conference.
The Old Big East: Pitt, Syracuse, B.C., Miami, Virginia Tech and now partial Notre Dame
The Old Core is: Virginia, Duke, North Carolina, Wake Forest, N.C. State, Clemson
The independent additions are: Georgia Tech and Florida State
The asymmetrical replacement is: Louisville.

The issue is that the interests and sports culture of the Old Big East doesn't culturally fit the Old Core. Georgia Tech fits them the best of the additions. Florida State chose poorly!

I would have said the SEC should have gone to 6 out of the ACC by taking the Old Core minus Wake Forest but then there is the rub. Wake is definitely a viable part of the Old Core so they were never going to leave without them and the SEC was never going to give UNC a voting block of 5 or even 6 within the SEC. Maybe we give the state of Texas 3 votes, maybe?

But since the ACC was in a grow or die mode with regard to the Big East they chose to grow. So it is what it is. And because of that our growth will be to the West. I'm thinking Chapel Hill already realizes the mistake of taking N.D. as a partial. N.D. has great sway with the Old Big East schools and technically that is enough to block legislation within the ACC and to form football first coalitions with Georgia Tech, Clemson and Florida State in addition to VaTech and Miami.

I can foresee a day should N.D. ever join in full when there will be a split between Chapel Hill and South Bend.

East: Syracuse, BC, UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, East Carolina, Central Fla., S. Florida, Navy, Army, Houston, Tulsa, UMass.

ACC:. Miami, GT, Duke, UNC, VT, UVA, WVU, Pitt, Maryland, Tulane, Rice, TCU, SMU, Vanderbilt, Baylor, WFU.

BIG: Penn State, Ohio State, Mich. State, Michigan, Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, NW, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Iowa State, Kansas, Notre Dame, Air Force

PAC: UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, ASU, Arizona, Colo., Oregon, Ore. St., UW, WSU, Utah, TTU, OU, oSu, UNM.

SEC: Ala., Aub., Miss. State, Ole Miss., Ark., Mizzou, Kentucky, Tennessee, UGA, So. Car., UF, FSU, Clemson, NCSU, Texas, KSU (trying to fit all).

(09-21-2018 02:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2018 01:41 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 10:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 07:03 PM)JRsec Wrote:  https://goiowaawesome.com/the-big-ten/20...o-contract

I don't think the Big Ten would contract, but it's hard to argue with his analysis.

Well the SEC landed Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and South Carolina. That's 3 state flagship schools with large passionate fan bases and all of them are usually competitive although Missouri had a 3 year dip after Pinkel and Arkansas is at a low right now.

All four of our additions do fit in one way or the other. All of them do well with attendance, Missouri a little less so.

But look at the Big 10. They have two stadium fillers in Nebraska and Penn State, but Nebraska is struggling. Then their last two additions make no sense in what will become a content driven world. They have sparse to horrible crowds. They have precious little in the way of other compensating sports, at least in revenue generators. And they don't have large followings unless they are winning which they show no signs of doing. In short as the pay model changes both will become a drain on Big 10 resources.

At least in the SEC if we add nobody else we are fine at 14, profitable at 14, and everyone contributes something.

I'd say that what went unsaid is that the Big 10 may have a tough time attracting other big name programs with what will be two boat anchors on the roster.

I like our situation much much better than theirs.

This suggests other conferences can work with Big Ten schools to persuade Delaney to loosen his demands on Division play in athletic conferences.

That's an excellent catch murrdcu. I can see the SEC and ACC making headway if we can do that.

But it does make me suspicious about the Big 10's seriousness over Oklahoma. They could become another Nebraska, and I think that's going to be in the backs of their minds.

But considering the last two B1G additions, if they are going to expand they can only do it with either a Texas or an OU. Probably both. The conference can't afford any addition schools that don't contribute to the bottom line.

I do find Rutgers to be an interesting case study in expansion performance. The mantra has always been 'give us P5 money and an interesting schedule and we'll take CFB by storm!' Despite getting the golden ticket, The State Univ. of NJ is still the same school they have always been.

(09-21-2018 04:25 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-21-2018 02:10 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-21-2018 01:41 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 11:07 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 10:51 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  I don't think the Big Ten would contract, but it's hard to argue with his analysis.

Well the SEC landed Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri, and South Carolina. That's 3 state flagship schools with large passionate fan bases and all of them are usually competitive although Missouri had a 3 year dip after Pinkel and Arkansas is at a low right now.

All four of our additions do fit in one way or the other. All of them do well with attendance, Missouri a little less so.

But look at the Big 10. They have two stadium fillers in Nebraska and Penn State, but Nebraska is struggling. Then their last two additions make no sense in what will become a content driven world. They have sparse to horrible crowds. They have precious little in the way of other compensating sports, at least in revenue generators. And they don't have large followings unless they are winning which they show no signs of doing. In short as the pay model changes both will become a drain on Big 10 resources.

At least in the SEC if we add nobody else we are fine at 14, profitable at 14, and everyone contributes something.

I'd say that what went unsaid is that the Big 10 may have a tough time attracting other big name programs with what will be two boat anchors on the roster.

I like our situation much much better than theirs.

This suggests other conferences can work with Big Ten schools to persuade Delaney to loosen his demands on Division play in athletic conferences.

That's an excellent catch murrdcu. I can see the SEC and ACC making headway if we can do that.

But it does make me suspicious about the Big 10's seriousness over Oklahoma. They could become another Nebraska, and I think that's going to be in the backs of their minds.

But considering the last two B1G additions, if they are going to expand they can only do it with either a Texas or an OU. Probably both. The conference can't afford any addition schools that don't contribute to the bottom line.

I do find Rutgers to be an interesting case study in expansion performance. The mantra has always been 'give us P5 money and an interesting schedule and we'll take CFB by storm!' Despite getting the golden ticket, The State Univ. of NJ is still the same school they have always been.

While Rutgers continues to float around the college athletics lake without a sail and now with a golden paddle it’s playing with as a limbo pole on the poop deck, Maryland is making some gains in the footballing efforts even though recent transgressions reflect improper behavior and protocols are being followed.

To be fair to Rutgers, they've only received partial Big Ten payouts up to this point, so it's premature to say they've failed with B1G money - they haven't gotten it yet.

(09-22-2018 07:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To be fair to Rutgers, they've only received partial Big Ten payouts up to this point, so it's premature to say they've failed with B1G money - they haven't gotten it yet.

That’s gotta be another turn-off to B1G membership; 7 years of paying dues until a full share.

I’m actually interested in seeing how much, if any, buy in would be required to join the SEC—primarily thinking about the Network.

Thoughts or hypotheses?

IMO, what you see happening in the B1G and the SEC is the same strategy of expanding from a regional conferences (The Midwest and the South East) to Super Regional Conferences (The North and The South)

The interesting part here is culture. The SEC had little trouble doing this because despite regional variations that make us unique, there is still that overarching SOUTHERN culture that unites us. The love of football (especially college) BBQ, family, religion, hunting, fishing, holding the door open for a woman etc etc. It unites us wether we're from Texas or Florida or any point in between.

The north on the other hand does not have a unifying "NORTHERN" culture. The farms and factorys of Midwest are a whole different planet from the townships of New England and the East Coast Mega cities. They are split on FB vs BB, and conservative vs liberal values. Texas is different but not fundamentally different from any of our other SEC brethren states and Texas A&M is not a fundamentally different school from anyone excepts the Nerds in Nashville. But Iowa is a fundamentally different school from Rutgers and Iowa is a fundamentally different state than New Jersey and there is no great, broad Northern Culture to bridge the two together like we have in the South

TLDR: Cultural Fit still matters.

(09-22-2018 09:23 AM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 07:12 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  To be fair to Rutgers, they've only received partial Big Ten payouts up to this point, so it's premature to say they've failed with B1G money - they haven't gotten it yet.

That’s gotta be another turn-off to B1G membership; 7 years of paying dues until a full share.

I’m actually interested in seeing how much, if any, buy in would be required to join the SEC—primarily thinking about the Network.

Thoughts or hypotheses?

Zero buy in. Since we don't own the SECN there is no equity stake since 50% of the profits are divided between ESPN and the SEC and then the SEC schools share the profits 15 ways. The conference office gets a cut for operating expenses. So there is nothing to buy into. You are fully vested from day 1.