header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 21   Go Down
Author

Topic: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?

 (Read 21911 times)

Anonymous Coward

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #98 on: September 23, 2018, 01:28:05 PM »
Quote from: 847badgerfan on September 23, 2018, 12:47:54 PM
Put M, MSU, PSU, UW, Iowa and NU in a division. The others are in a separate division. Last place team from upper division drops to lower division and first place team from lower division moves up.
In many soccer leagues, they do this thing where you begin kind of without divisions and then after a certain amount of the season, teams are thrown into championship or leftovers bins and those bins finish with round robins. No need for a CCG and no bad taste in your mouth about "oh the game that could have been." 
Sounds like a CFB dream. In the expansion era, at least.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37556
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #99 on: September 24, 2018, 08:44:40 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on September 23, 2018, 12:33:19 PM

Rutgers is pretty clearly the weakest team in the conference at the moment, I think, but they were half decent just a couple years back.  Or so.

Maybe Nebraska should get the boot though.
yup
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Brutus Buckeye

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11239
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #100 on: September 24, 2018, 08:51:18 PM »
They may not have been the team that I'd've picked, but they're here now. 

The B1G East has put up a fence around NJ, recruiting wise. 
Logged
1919, 20, 21, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, 42, 44
WWH: 1952, 54, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 65, 67, 68, 70, 72, 74, 75
1979, 81, 82, 84, 87, 94, 98
2001, 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25267
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #101 on: September 24, 2018, 09:41:12 PM »
Quote from: Brutus Buckeye on September 24, 2018, 08:51:18 PM


The B1G East has put up a fence around NJ, recruiting wise.
Look up Ron Dayne, Anthony Davis and Jonathon Taylor. There may be more. Old man memory fades.
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #102 on: September 25, 2018, 08:03:45 AM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on September 23, 2018, 12:33:19 PM
Rutgers is pretty clearly the weakest team in the conference at the moment, I think, but they were half decent just a couple years back.  Or so.

And maybe they have good lacrosse teams.
No, they are not good at any sports. Of the 15 sports they participate in the highest they finished in any was 9th. Seven of the sports they got dead last.
Rutgers winning percentage their 1st 4 years, across all sports:

2014-15: 50-127-1 (.284)
2015-16: 51-124-2 (.288)
2016-17: 37-132-7 (.230)
2017-18: 39-131-3 (.234)


They were brought in to deliver the New York Media Market, they are no longer doing that. It's time to drop them. 
« Last Edit: September 25, 2018, 08:07:39 AM by TyphonInc »
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71576
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #103 on: September 25, 2018, 08:15:18 AM »
UGA recruits well in NJ of late, including their starting RB right now.

What are the steps a conference can take to drop a program?  Can this even be done in the B1G?

I imagine it is possible, but perhaps the process is tortuous.


Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71576
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #104 on: September 25, 2018, 08:16:19 AM »
Quote from: OrangeAfroMan on September 23, 2018, 01:06:37 PM
Rutgers isn't just normal "worst in the conference" bad.  Blown out by Kansas and Buffalo is a special kind of awful.
It's like being blown out by Florida.
Logged

TyphonInc

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1930
  • Easily Amused
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #105 on: September 25, 2018, 09:07:09 AM »
Would Syracuse deliver NYC Media market?

Comcast pretty clearly delineated their coverage to include only the home state's Big Ten Teams Reside. 
(Plus Washington DC media market including parts of Virginia for Maryland) 

I personally think they would only include New York State, and not NYC. But if they could deliver the biggest media market then they are clearly valuable. 

Up thread it was mentioned that it was brands and not markets that was more valuable to the SEC. I think Missouri and Virginia Tech are the biggest brands BTN can get. (Unless the homeruns of ND, Texas, or Oklahoma become available.)  

Would Kentucky be a big enough brand to merit consideration? (Talking brands, not Academics or TV market)
Logged

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71576
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #106 on: September 25, 2018, 09:28:29 AM »
I think the "NY media market" when it comes to college football is illusory.  Basketball, probably more, but the NE seems to be very oriented to professional sports.  The SE of course had no pro sports so college sports developed into much more of a "thing", and the folks who moved south often hail from OH and MI and get college sports also.

Atlanta is a very college sports oriented town even though the primary college team here sucks.

A buddy of mine and his wife some OH is coming down in October and we're going to check out a sports bar for the UGA-UF game.  He's a big OSU fan (and alum) and they are off that week apparently.

We passed a Taco Mac last night and they had a lot of screens glowing, I don't know if they are a sports bar or not, have to google.  We avoid large chains these days.
Logged

ELA

  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 20331
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #107 on: September 25, 2018, 09:53:41 AM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on September 25, 2018, 09:28:29 AM
I think the "NY media market" when it comes to college football is illusory.  Basketball, probably more, but the NE seems to be very oriented to professional sports.  The SE of course had no pro sports so college sports developed into much more of a "thing", and the folks who moved south often hail from OH and MI and get college sports also.
It's not the number of eyeballs per se, as much as getting it on the basic tier in the market.  That's the guaranteed money.  Comcast didn't want to pay the Big Ten on a per subscriber basis for the whole NYC market, on the basis of Rutgers, which is why the new deal is on a "home state" basis, rather than a local market basis, so that NYC is now excluded.  That was the impetus for Rutgers in the first place, is that the initial B1G-Comcast deal called for automatically moving it to a basic tier in the local markets, which I think was something crazy like an extra 40 cents per subscriber.  Figure out what 40 cents per subscriber is for the NYC market, and you see the sole purpose for adding Rutgers, not about actual eyeballs.  Hell, if they brought the actual eyeballs, Comcast probably wouldn't mind paying it.  But to your point, people in NYC aren't watching, but Comcast is paying for them anyway.
I have to imagine the new deal doesn't allow for automatic shifts based on conference realignment, so that even if the Big Ten added Syracuse, I can't imagine that would automatically put all of New York State into the BTN basic tier.
Logged

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 37556
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #108 on: September 25, 2018, 10:44:23 AM »
Ed Zachery

it's about staying on the basic tier

Comcast had some push back at the latest round of negotiations, but it's all good now.
Logged
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

Cincydawg

  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 71576
  • Oracle of Piedmont Park
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #109 on: September 25, 2018, 11:30:16 AM »
Comcast can do the math obviously.  If it doesn't pay out for them, they will drop out.
Logged

medinabuckeye1

  • Legend
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 8906
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #110 on: September 25, 2018, 12:08:01 PM »
Quote from: Cincydawg on September 25, 2018, 09:28:29 AM
I think the "NY media market" when it comes to college football is illusory.  
It is.  This is an old article, but I have never seen an update so it will have to do for now:
To your point and from the link provided:  "(O)n a per-capita basis, there are probably about 5 times as many football fans in Birmingham as there are in New York.  so although the New York media market is about 10 times larger, it has fewer than twice as many college football fans as Birmingham."  
When the article came out NYC was the largest College Football Fan market in the country, but only barely.  The top 10:
  • 2.9M out of 20.2M people, NYC
  • 2.6M out of 6.5M people, ATL
  • 2.6M out of 15.3M people, LA
  • 1.9M out of 7.0M people, DAL
  • 1.8M out of 9.4M people, CHI
  • 1.7M out of 2.1M people, Birmingham
  • 1.7M out of 8.1M people, Philly
  • 1.6M out of 5.9M people, HOU
  • 1.4M out of 4.8M people, Tampa-St Pete
  • 1.3M out of 5.1M people, Detroit

According to the article, Rutgers is (or at least was in 2011) the strongest school in the NYC market but they are hardly dominant.  Here is the top-10 in the NYC market according to the linked 2011 NYT article:
  • 21% of market, Rutgers
  • 9% of market, Notre Dame
  • 6% of market, Penn State
  • 5% of market, UCONN
  • 5% of market, Michigan
  • 5% of market, Cuse
  • 3% of market, Miami, FL
  • 3% of market, Army
  • 2% of market, Ohio State
  • 2% of market, Boston College

By way of comparison, in the Omaha TV market Nebraska has a 71% share.  Note that in the NYC market the top-10 teams do not have 71% combined.  
Logged

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 25267
  • Liked:
Re: Who would you realistically replace Rutgers with?
« Reply #111 on: September 25, 2018, 12:14:35 PM »
I'm having a hard time buying those LA numbers. 
Logged
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 ... 21   Go Up
« previous next »
 
Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.
Smokey Record Hoodie

Smokey Record Hoodie