They are small compared to the following of Notre Dame based on the numbers on a different thread.

Would the additional revenue water down the revenue generated by other teams after being distributed equally?? If you include bowl revenue does a school like Ohio State lose revenue by adding my teams?

Con_Alma;906685 wrote:They are small compared to the following of Notre Dame based on the numbers on a different thread.

All fanbases are small compared to Notre Dame

SportsAndLady;906688 wrote:All fanbases are small compared to Notre Dame

I understand that. What I don't understand is does the revenue for a school get diluted by adding two more when bowl money and tv money are split? Do those schools like Missouri and Kansas bring in at least the average amount of money or will it be less?

Doesn't seem like it to me but I don't know.

SportsAndLady;906688 wrote:All fanbases are small compared to Notre Dame

According to New York Times, Notre Dame has the 4th largest fan base; behind OSU, Michigan, and Penn State.
http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/

Con_Alma;906690 wrote:I understand that. What I don't understand is does the revenue for a school get diluted by adding two more when bowl money and tv money are split? Do those schools like Missouri and Kansas bring in at least the average amount of money or will it be less?

Doesn't seem like it to me but I don't know.

I doubt it adds enough extra money on its own, but don't conferences generally charge a fee to join? Factor that with perhaps a new member not getting as big a share during the first year or so (perhaps the monies are increased incrementally) and I'm betting it doesn't end up hurting existing members financially.

I think over an extended period of time it would hurt.

If the don't bring in more than the average payout from bowl and TV rev it would have to.

Even if there's a fee and the payout out to the new school is graduated in it would still be less money over time to other schools.

I am only speculating of course. I don't know. If that's the case my question still stands. Why even be interested in expanding further?

Con_Alma;906717 wrote:If the don't bring in more than the average payout from bowl and TV rev it would have to.

I know what you are saying. In the case of Missouri, they'd bring the St. Louis and Kansas City TV markets, which are both somewhere around the top 20-30 US markets according to a few different lists I looked at. Also, I've seen Springfield MO in the 70s. I'm not an expert, but I do know one of the biggest factors in the TV deals is how many TVs you can access. Missouri seems to bring a pretty good offer to the table.

Kansas, on the other hand, seems limited with only Wichita showing up in the top 100 (around 70) of the lists I looked at quickly.

You're making an assumption that payouts stay static. They don't. I'm pretty sure the payouts from the BTN have seen pretty healthy increases during the first few years. Bowl payouts also don't stay static, depending on the TV contract.

I just don't get the Kansas thing at all. Is it just to have an even number?

Writerbuckeye;906775 wrote:You're making an assumption that payouts stay static. They don't. I'm pretty sure the payouts from the BTN have seen pretty healthy increases during the first few years. Bowl payouts also don't stay static, depending on the TV contract.

Increasing or not the question is will missouri bring in more tv/bowl revenue than they would receive? Will they bring in more money than they will receive.

There's no way Kansas would.

enigmaax;906773 wrote: Kansas, on the other hand, seems limited with only Wichita showing up in the top 100 (around 70) of the lists I looked at quickly.

Kansas brings the Kansas City market

Con_Alma;906782 wrote:Increasing or not the question is will missouri bring in more tv/bowl revenue than they would receive? Will they bring in more money than they will receive.

There's no way Kansas would.

Well, if you're going to go by that reasoning, the Big Ten should dump Indiana and Northwestern right now.

SportsAndLady;906844 wrote:Kansas brings the Kansas City market

The talk was about Missouri and Kansas together. If Missouri was already a part of it, Kansas wouldn't add much. Or picking between the two, Missouri offers two big markets to Kansas' one.

Writerbuckeye;906877 wrote:Well, if you're going to go by that reasoning, the Big Ten should dump Indiana and Northwestern right now.

There's a big difference between having schools in the conference who have been there for decades and adding new ones.

My question is why consider adding someone like Kansas?

Writerbuckeye;906877 wrote:Well, if you're going to go by that reasoning, the Big Ten should dump Indiana and Northwestern right now.

They aren't looking to downsize. They're looking to expand...and why would they expand if the schools they added don't make everyone more money?

enigmaax;906885 wrote:The talk was about Missouri and Kansas together. If Missouri was already a part of it, Kansas wouldn't add much. Or picking between the two, Missouri offers two big markets to Kansas' one.

I'm a bit confused..are you saying Missouri would have the Kansas City market moreso than Kansas would?

SportsAndLady;906945 wrote:I'm a bit confused..are you saying Missouri would have the Kansas City market moreso than Kansas would?

I bet it'd be close, being on the border and all. KU is really close to KC which might tilt the scales in their favor.

SportsAndLady;906945 wrote:I'm a bit confused..are you saying Missouri would have the Kansas City market moreso than Kansas would?

You can get into the Kansas City market with either Missouri or Kansas City. It doesn't matter who has more fans there, you just need to get on TV there. The fact that Missouri would also bring St. Louis (which trumps KC anyway) and Springfield (less important, but still a factor) makes Missouri a more attractive option.

So for example, if the Bee One Gee accepted Missouri, they'd already be in the KC market. Adding Kansas wouldn't bring a new market, even if there are a lot of Kansas fans there.

Con_Alma;906886 wrote:There's a big difference between having schools in the conference who have been there for decades and adding new ones.

My question is why consider adding someone like Kansas?

If you have to expand (not saying I agree with this, but if everyone is going to 16 super conferences, you get left behind, otherwise) who else you going to take that's available, close to your existing footprint, is at least a reasonable academic fit, and brings at least, in part, a new market?

Remember now, I've already eliminated two better choices in Notre Dame and Texas which, for different reasons, didn't want to come to the Big Ten.

So give me two better fits academically and otherwise than Kansas and Missiouri?

Writerbuckeye;906970 wrote:If you have to expand (not saying I agree with this, but if everyone is going to 16 super conferences, you get left behind, otherwise) who else you going to take that's available, close to your existing footprint, is at least a reasonable academic fit, and brings at least, in part, a new market?

Remember now, I've already eliminated two better choices in Notre Dame and Texas which, for different reasons, didn't want to come to the Big Ten.

So give me two better fits academically and otherwise than Kansas and Missiouri?

I think the point is, why would they feel compelled to expand simply because some other conferences did? Is there some competitive disadvantage to the B1G by having only 12 teams (assuming others go to 16)? You need 12 to have a championship game, so they've got that. The only reason to go any further is if those new teams brought more money for everyone.

The moves the other conferences made (and someone else pointed this out in the past) were either to bring in a new market (i.e., new/more money or recruiting territory) or to survive. The ACC may have done a little of both. They might be a little bit scared of being robbed by the SEC, so they expanded. But it isn't like they took teams just for warm bodies. Very calculated picks.

enigmaax;906981 wrote:The only reason to go any further is if those new teams brought more money for everyone.

I agree with that. Nebraska was a great pickup from a football point of view. I don't want them adding teams just to add teams or because everyone else is doing it. If we can't get quality, I'd rather just stay right where we are.

While Kansas may not add much in terms of a quality football team, they're basketball program is one of the top in the nation. I know football is the whole driving force behind all this expansion stuff, but man would it be sweet to have Kansas basketball in the B1G.

enigmaax;906949 wrote:You can get into the Kansas City market with either Missouri or Kansas City. It doesn't matter who has more fans there, you just need to get on TV there. The fact that Missouri would also bring St. Louis (which trumps KC anyway) and Springfield (less important, but still a factor) makes Missouri a more attractive option.

Yeah I agree with everything you said. Except for the fact that KC is split between Mizzou and KU...it's not.

If you told someone from that area that there are just as many Mizery fans than Kansas fans in KC, they'd laugh in your face. (not trying to be a dick, just saying thats how pro-ku KC is).

Don't forget about Kansas' national brand. Missouri doens't have a national following (although their great tv market trumps KU's national brand), Kansas does--i'm a perfect example.

SportsAndLady;907131 wrote:Yeah I agree with everything you said. Except for the fact that KC is split between Mizzou and KU...it's not.

If you told someone from that area that there are just as many Mizery fans than Kansas fans in KC, they'd laugh in your face. (not trying to be a ****, just saying thats how pro-ku KC is).

Don't forget about Kansas' national brand. Missouri doens't have a national following (although their great tv market trumps KU's national brand), Kansas does--i'm a perfect example.

I'm not addressing how the fanbase is split at all. I don't have any idea and don't care. It doesn't really matter as long as Missouri is going to be on TV in KC.

As for Kansas' national brand and the value of their basketball team, I fall somewhere in the middle of your and Jordo's opinions. Basketball isn't a driving force and that's where Kansas' national brand is built. They do incredible business from a basketball standpoint. However, there's astronomically less value in that to an entire conference than there is for football. And Kansas isn't a national brand for football. Their basketball team makes Kansas better off and if it came down to picking up scraps, that might give Kansas an edge over schools like Baylor and Iowa State. But for someone to actively pursue Kansas as a valuable addition? The major players aren't exactly going to salivate over the chance to have Kansas.

Kentucky has a similar brand in basketball. You never hear any conference talk about how much UK would enhance the conference. If the SEC started falling apart, nobody would be scrambling to get them even with two decent-sized markets and a stand-alone basketball program.