Phoenix is the No. 12 DMA and Seattle No. 14. Seattle's rank has been slipping.
I assume that the Big 10 and its media partners have much better data today than was available when Rutgers and Maryland were added to the conference. Did those schools really add value to the media packages? Who knows and I doubt the Big 10 ever says otherwise. But if adding conference members anymore is strictly a business decision (as Maryland and Rutgers [and perhaps UCLA) suggest) where else does the Big 10 look? Besides Notre Dame, what other plums really are left out there (unavailable ACC schools notwithstanding)?
I don't recall the source, but the USCLA acquisition caught the Big 10 somewhat off guard and it was USC alone that initiated things and UCLA more or less was brought along with it. Meanwhile, the scuttlebutt, for what its worth, suggests the Big 10 was next interested or at least kicked the tires on Oregon and Washington. Washington is obviously in a larger market. Oregon isn't but an argument could be made that it is a national brand but not at the same level Nebraska is/was when it came on board.
Why would Cal and/or Stanford be left behind? San Fran/San Jose is the 6th largest DMA. Does the data say that despite market size, very few televisions tune in to Cal and or Stanford games/will subsribe to television package tiers/streaming and cable providers won't add the network?
I personally agree that at this point the conference needs to be bigger to be more interesting assuming that the additions would result in pods that are grouped geographically. On the west coast, one of Cal/Stanford plus Washington, Oregon and ASU would be interesting and other than Oregon, make the most business sense.
I also think, strictly from a business standpoint, that the Big 10 ought to be looking at more emerging markets. Utah is intriguing. SLC is a small DMA, but one of the fastest growing. I think the Denver market is 14 or 15 DMA. Colorado and Utah would be an interesting addition with a mix of growth and existing market size.
