Realignment: Mizzou wanted Big Ten invite the most, now looking to SEC

Donate To GopherHole

We're not interested in odd numbers again. So taking one would require taking 2. And without Notre Dame being one, it won't happen.
 

I would prefer the B1G stay right where we are right now. Let the other conferences do what we want.
 

I wonder how close the Big Ten came to inviting Missouri over Nebraska.
 

station19 said:
I wonder how close the Big Ten came to inviting Missouri over Nebraska.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think it was very close. Nebraska came in with a brand name. Missouri is nowhere near the brand Nebraska is.
 


Without notre dame and/or Texas it is likely the big ten loses money by expanding. Sorry but the tv rights to 7 additional mizzou and likely 16-20 basketball aren't gonna add 30 million dollars to the big ten pot.
 

I would have taken Mizzou over Nebraska anyday. But I don't think it makes sense now, as RM points out. I don't see the cable penetration in STL and KC adding $30 million to BTN.
 

howeda7 said:
I would have taken Mizzou over Nebraska anyday. But I don't think it makes sense now, as RM points out. I don't see the cable penetration in STL and KC adding $30 million to BTN.
Click to expand...

+1 on Mizzou over Nebraska
 

1- Everyone hadn't already figured out that Mizzou wanted an invite to the B1G??
2 - No, it was not a mistake to miss out on Mizzou. I wouldn't be shocked if part of the SEC's interest is because it pulls an obvious expansion option from the B1G (that would only be used in a situation where ND or similar program was joining), but the main reason they're talking is that the SEC wants someone to go with tamu. Mizzou is a decent filler, not a great commodity in itself. There was a great bit in, I believe, the NYT a couple weeks back that was posted here that breaks down the general value of differing programs. Mizzou comes out as being just below average in the B1G in terms of $$ and media exposure.
3 - Preferring Mizzou to Nebraska seems nonsensical to me. To the people that would have, what's your reasoning?
 



RedPoo said:
.
3 - Preferring Mizzou to Nebraska seems nonsensical to me. To the people that would have, what's your reasoning?
Click to expand...

-Much better media markets in STL and KC than anything Nebraska adds. (More homes adding BTN on basic cable = more subscriber fees)

-Better overall sports beyond football, especially men's hoops.

-Better academics.

What does Nebraska have over Missouri except a traditionally better football program? Nothing that I can see. While Nebraska's 'brand' is worth more than Mizzou's for football tv contacts, how much is that worth really, factoring in the lower cable penetration for BTN? The real value of the 12th team was the Championship game, which was happening either way.
 

Nebraska adds more tv viewers because they are a national program. It isn't close. That's like arguing Minnesota adds more than Penn state because the twin cities are bigger than state college.
 

Rosemountian said:
Nebraska adds more tv viewers because they are a national program. It isn't close. That's like arguing Minnesota adds more than Penn state because the twin cities are bigger than state college.
Click to expand...

Viewers and revenue for BTN do not necessarily go together. I don't doubt that ABC's ratings would have been lower for Mizzou at Wisconsin on Saturday. But to what degree does that make them lower their next contract offer and does the gain in BTN revenue from adding two major markets off-set it? I still say when you take of the 'football rules everything' blinders, Mizzou was a better fit, both for $$ and other reasons.

Also, the PSU comparison is weak. Happy Valley may be tiny, but PSU brings the entire state of PA with it, including Pittsburgh and Philly. Nebraska brings the whole state too, not just Lincoln, but it still doesn't add up to much. If Iowa and MN were expansion targets for another conference, MN might be more attractive even though Iowa has a better football team, don't you think?
 

Mizzou's bigger, better academics, better research university (kind of like a bigten school). Nebraska is football. Should Nebraska backslide to mediocrity in football, what did the BT get besides nothing.
 



Viewers and revenue from big ten network dont necessarily go together, but viewers and revenue from tv contracts from abc/espn go together. Viewers and big ten championship game revenue go together.


Do you honestly think Missouri would add more revenue than Nebraska is going to? Are you really that much of an idiot? Or are you just being argumentative?
 

howeda7 said:
I don't doubt that ABC's ratings would have been lower for Mizzou at Wisconsin on Saturday.
Click to expand...

A Wisconsin v Mizzou game wouldn't have been on national TV to begin with.

Missouri does nothing for the conference.
 

Rosemountian said:
Viewers and revenue from big ten network dont necessarily go together, but viewers and revenue from tv contracts from abc/espn go together. Viewers and big ten championship game revenue go together.


Do you honestly think Missouri would add more revenue than Nebraska is going to? Are you really that much of an idiot? Or are you just being argumentative?
Click to expand...

It's pretty obvious, but if you're going to include the word idiot in your response you may want to be very specific who you're replying to, maybe poke that quote button. Just sayin'.
 

Not talking to you. I'll quote next time though to avoid confusion.
 


howeda7 said:
-Much better media markets in STL and KC than anything Nebraska adds. (More homes adding BTN on basic cable = more subscriber fees)

-Better overall sports beyond football, especially men's hoops.
Click to expand...

The basketball argument is interesting. Nebraska might be the only BCS school not named Northwestern who looks up to Missouri historically.

KC is not a Mizzou town. Not by a long shot.

Neither Nebraska nor Missouri fit in with the Big Ten academically.

The question of how close the Big Ten was to offering Mizzou instead of Nebraska is tough to answer but the Big Ten clearly never wanted Mizzou. They have whored themselves to the Big Ten for years and it reached pathetic proportions last year.
 

theTurning said:
A Wisconsin v Mizzou game wouldn't have been on national TV to begin with.

Missouri does nothing for the conference.
Click to expand...

If the only thing you're factoring into the expansion is football - you'd be correct. However, there are many other factors in play. I don't think Nebraska was a slam dunk over Missouri at all - however, you can read between the lines on how big of a factor football was in the decision for Delany & Co.
 

I heard the Big Ten wanted Notre Dame before Nebraska.
 

The expansion was certainly about short-term gratification (money and football). Says a lot about our "academic" mindedness.
 

The decision to invite Nebraska over Missouri was about football and whatever perceived value Nebraska's football team would bring to the Big Ten.

I would rank Missouri marginally ahead of Nebraska academically, but neither school really fits in the Big Ten academically. At least at the time Nebraska was invited, it had the patina of legitimacy that comes with AAU membership. Of course, that went down in flames this year when Nebraska was voted out.

The best overall fit was and still is Notre Dame.

Texas_Gopher: Are you in East Texas or West Texas?
 

I'm not exactly sure how Missouri is getting all this praise for being undeniably better academically than Nebraska.. I don't typically trust only one source, so here's an aggregate of collegiate rankings:

US News & World Report: UNL: 101 Mizzou: 90 (link)
ARWU: UNL: 79-89 Mizzou: 90-111 (US ranking, not world), (link)
Times Higher Education: UNL: Not ranked in top 80 North American Universities Mizzou: UNL: Not ranked in top 80 North American Universities (link)
Public Research Universities: UNL: 48 Mizzou: 30 (link)

Based on this data I'd give Missouri a slight edge but in no way would I saw they're a slam dunk over Nebraska, either...

I'd also say that while Missouri might HELP in the KC/STL markets, would it really be that big of a get over Nebraska? Nebraska has "more fans" total (if you believe that geography of college football article) and I bet Nebraska isn't too far behind Kansas or Missouri in those markets. Outside the core NE/KS/MO states I guarantee Nebraska has a bigger fan draw and TV power (non- Nebraska or Missouri fans would rather tune in to a NE game than MO game), making it a more marketable and therefore revenue generating team.

Overall athletics (non-rev) I think Nebraska has the slight edge.. 2010-2011 year NE was 33rd in Director's Cup rankings while MO was 41. Previous year UNL 17, MO 48. 2008-09: NE 31 MO 36.

Nebraska basketball sure does suck, though..
 



Rosemountian said:
Viewers and revenue from big ten network dont necessarily go together, but viewers and revenue from tv contracts from abc/espn go together. Viewers and big ten championship game revenue go together.


Do you honestly think Missouri would add more revenue than Nebraska is going to? Are you really that much of an idiot? Or are you just being argumentative?
Click to expand...

No. But I think it's close enough to be debatable when considering the other factors. I'm not claiming to have researched the # of cable homes on KC/STL versus the great state of Nebraska, nor do either of us know how much less the next ESPN contract would be worth with Mizzou in place of NE. You clearly think it would be significant, I'm not so sure. And what if NE did back-slide further in football (I realize this appears less likely now than 2 years ago.)

In any case it's not an 'idiotic' debate.
 

Tx_Gopher said:
The decision to invite Nebraska over Missouri was about football and whatever perceived value Nebraska's football team would bring to the Big Ten.

I would rank Missouri marginally ahead of Nebraska academically, but neither school really fits in the Big Ten academically. At least at the time Nebraska was invited, it had the patina of legitimacy that comes with AAU membership. Of course, that went down in flames this year when Nebraska was voted out.

The best overall fit was and still is Notre Dame.

Texas_Gopher: Are you in East Texas or West Texas?
Click to expand...

East. And you?
 

ChestHair said:
The basketball argument is interesting. Nebraska might be the only BCS school not named Northwestern who looks up to Missouri historically.
Click to expand...

Huh? Missouri is much better in basketball than many other BCS programs from an historical standpoint.

Street & Smith's historical program ranking (2005) - #38
T-#35 winningest program all-time
ESPN/Sagarin all-time program rankings (2009) - #29

That being said, conference expansion anywhere is driven almost solely by football, and Nebraska was the only slam-dunk addition that fit geographically and in terms of "ethos" while still being a public institution.
 

howeda7 said:
Viewers and revenue for BTN do not necessarily go together. I don't doubt that ABC's ratings would have been lower for Mizzou at Wisconsin on Saturday. But to what degree does that make them lower their next contract offer and does the gain in BTN revenue from adding two major markets off-set it? I still say when you take of the 'football rules everything' blinders, Mizzou was a better fit, both for $$ and other reasons.

Also, the PSU comparison is weak. Happy Valley may be tiny, but PSU brings the entire state of PA with it, including Pittsburgh and Philly. Nebraska brings the whole state too, not just Lincoln, but it still doesn't add up to much. If Iowa and MN were expansion targets for another conference, MN might be more attractive even though Iowa has a better football team, don't you think?
Click to expand...

Philly is the 7th largest college football market and PSU dominates...the PSU-Temple game a couple weeks ago drew 55,000 fans and a 6.7 rating overall with a 10.0 rating for the final 15 minutes...that translates to 48% of the TVs in Philadelphia being tuned into the game...don't know about Pitt but Philly is a PSU town.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom