This guy probably also thinks that USC/UCLA to the Big 10 is likely.
Where Will ISU End Up if the Big 12 Implodes?
- Thread starter Gunnerclone
- Start date
This guy probably also thinks that USC/UCLA to the Big 10 is likely.
Iowa State wouldn’t sell any subscriptions because the overwhelming majority of Iowa State fans already get Big Ten Network. There is minimal economic incentive for the Big Ten to add Iowa State.
I don’t. In fact none of my friends who graduated from ISU have the big ten network or even cable subscriptions at all.
Maybe you’re talking about olds?
Kansas was good in the Big 12 North. Avoided playing tough Texas schools for a couple years and played the easy teams in the South.
We sell out a 62,000+ stadium. Contrast that to an empty Kansas Stadium today.
Look at the current situation from the remaining Power Conferences point of view: The $EC is making moves to expand its inventory with two high, Power 5 brands. There are also eight Power 5 schools unexpectedly on the market.
If the remaining Power Conferences see the future of college football as four, 16 team super conferences,
- Would they look first to the newly available Big 12 orphans to build out their own inventory?
- Would they want to expand now to keep up with the SEC and get their pick of the Big 12 orphans before someone else does?
While an intriguing case could be made for Okie St and WVU, I propose that ISU and KU are the better fit because of their geography, cultural similarity, AAU pedigree (which seems to be important to the B1G), compelling narratives (obviously for different reasons) and modest-but-passionate fanbases. .... all at a "bargain price".
If Texas A&M switched, could the Big Ten snag Missouri? If so, would the Big Ten go for Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas and Iowa State? The Big Ten won't be able to grab any current ACC members as the ACC schools signed a Grant of Rights through 2035-36 with ESPN.
Big Ten Network is standard programming on all of the major streaming services pretty much anywhere in the country. If you are able to watch Iowa State football games on television, odds are you already get BTN.
Maybe you just don’t know what you’re talking about?
More of the old way of thinking, this is NOT 2010 where the goal of BTN was to move into new states where they could charge everyone for BTN on basic cable and get rich off of it. Cord cutting has changed all of that, as we move into streaming, then its going to be attendence and butts in the seats gives a good indication of how many people will pay to stream those services and pay for it.
The game has changed, having Iowa and ISU in the same state no longer matters to how much money each school can bring into the coffers of BTN. Schools like Maryland and Rutgers that were great under the old system, bringing in NY and Wash/Balt. now become a drag, because they have few fans that will pay to stream their games. Just look at their attendence, if they had a large fan base, their attendence would be much higher.
New game with new rules.
One of the reasons Texas A&M moved to the SEC was to get out from the Longhorn shadow and the 'little brother' title. Two Texas A&M thought they had an agreement with the SEC to be the only TX school in the SEC. So Texas A&M views the invitation of TX as the SEC breaking their promise/gentleman's agreement. So depending on how much different the money is Texas A&M might(?) want to throw a wrench at the SEC. Most likely not, but if I was the Big Ten I would most certainly make the call and fly down to College Station and see if I just bought a winning lottery ticket (add the TX market to the Big Ten would be money).
If that is the case, and BTN is standard programing on all streaming platforms, then NO team will bring in extra revenue for the league, because they would already be charged for it at this time.
You are reaching for straws here, yes, aTm is pissed and feels like they were taken advantage off, they are going to whine and make a big deal of it, but there is no way they are going to walk away from 70 to 80 million dollars coming in the future to move to the Big 10 for 55 million.
Hell doing so just sends the message to the whole state of Texas, we surrender and UT is the school for state of Texas.
No one is leaving the SEC. It would be a huge pay cut.
The only way for aTm to win at this point is on the field. Running away from that looks pathetic (and also taking a major payout lol)
The SEC bylaws have a ‘vote out’ clause as well. Imagine if Texas and OU join, and then all the big dogs vote out the little ones like Vandy to invite other blue bloods from other conferences..
The Big Ten hasn't renewed their TV contracts, which are up in 2 years (?), so nobody really knows for sure how payouts will compare to the SEC.
kcbob79clone
Well-Known Member
CW said basically the same thing on his KXNO show. Our attendance and traveling to bowl games has to mean something. Plus I think the B1G West towns are salivating over an influx of ISU fans for conference games. It means something, but does it mean enough?
Roughly 60% of the country still has cable or satellite TV. Streaming is gaining more market share every year, but expanding into new TV markets is still a meaningful way to boost revenues.
Butts in seats is worth quite a bit for everyone involved. Someone told me every human on earth with the internet gets the big ten network already, though, so it’s in the big tens best interest to never add another team. In fact, they should cut everyone but tOSU and Michigan and just have them play each other 10 times to maximize profits, apparently.
Is hanging around in the top 3 typically contending or at least within realm?
I'm not saying they're scary. I'm saying ISU isn't at the level where they just cruise.
Iowa has beaten ISU 5 times in a row, and will typically be good enough to make it a tough game even if ISU wins or (finally) plays well.
WI is averaging about 10 wins/season over the last decade and has won lots of bowls, and lost close Rose Bowls to very good teams.