If Big Ten Tournament Held Today

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,675
Reaction score
368
Points
83
Man, I couldn't disagree more with the idea of limiting the number of teams in the Big Ten Tournament. So, you want to tell teams like Nebraska, Penn State, and Michigan State who have had to pause activities and fight back, and who currently are likely not NCAA teams, to fight through all of what they're fighting through right now just to play regular season games....and then tell them they are done after fighting back to play??? If that's your stance, then you should just tell Nebraska and Penn State to end their seasons now, we don't need you, you don't matter, let's get everyone who matters to the finish line.

Nope, I cannot get on board with that. If they can field a team and are healthy, they deserve a shot in the Big Ten tourney.

I would argue a season like this, with so much uncertainty, is exactly the type of season everyone deserves a path (no matter how unlikely it is) to the NCAA field.
 

gophereric30

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
956
Reaction score
354
Points
63
Man, I couldn't disagree more with the idea of limiting the number of teams in the Big Ten Tournament. So, you want to tell teams like Nebraska, Penn State, and Michigan State who have had to pause activities and fight back, and who currently are likely not NCAA teams, to fight through all of what they're fighting through right now just to play regular season games....and then tell them they are done after fighting back to play??? If that's your stance, then you should just tell Nebraska and Penn State to end their seasons now, we don't need you, you don't matter, let's get everyone who matters to the finish line.

Nope, I cannot get on board with that. If they can field a team and are healthy, they deserve a shot in the Big Ten tourney.

I would argue a season like this, with so much uncertainty, is exactly the type of season everyone deserves a path (no matter how unlikely it is) to the NCAA field.
Agree 100%
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
Man, I couldn't disagree more with the idea of limiting the number of teams in the Big Ten Tournament. So, you want to tell teams like Nebraska, Penn State, and Michigan State who have had to pause activities and fight back, and who currently are likely not NCAA teams, to fight through all of what they're fighting through right now just to play regular season games....and then tell them they are done after fighting back to play??? If that's your stance, then you should just tell Nebraska and Penn State to end their seasons now, we don't need you, you don't matter, let's get everyone who matters to the finish line.

Nope, I cannot get on board with that. If they can field a team and are healthy, they deserve a shot in the Big Ten tourney.

I would argue a season like this, with so much uncertainty, is exactly the type of season everyone deserves a path (no matter how unlikely it is) to the NCAA field.
Yes, I would be fine with telling Nebraska and Penn St to go ahead and end their season now if they feel like it, especially if the Big 10 Tourney is going to be a money losing proposition at this point, not to mention the risk of having that many teams play at the same site on anywhere from 3-5 days, no off days for testing. Or just scrap the whole thing this year.

If they did not do enough in the regular season to make the NCAAs, well tough break. Pandemics suck.
 

SelectionSunday

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
22,446
Reaction score
646
Points
113
Man, I couldn't disagree more with the idea of limiting the number of teams in the Big Ten Tournament. So, you want to tell teams like Nebraska, Penn State, and Michigan State who have had to pause activities and fight back, and who currently are likely not NCAA teams, to fight through all of what they're fighting through right now just to play regular season games....and then tell them they are done after fighting back to play??? If that's your stance, then you should just tell Nebraska and Penn State to end their seasons now, we don't need you, you don't matter, let's get everyone who matters to the finish line.

Nope, I cannot get on board with that. If they can field a team and are healthy, they deserve a shot in the Big Ten tourney.

I would argue a season like this, with so much uncertainty, is exactly the type of season everyone deserves a path (no matter how unlikely it is) to the NCAA field.
Amen 100% to this.
 

MaxyJR1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
7,755
Reaction score
517
Points
113
Several conferences don't invite all the teams, in any year (ie MAC, Ivy and America East). I would only propose this for this year. Strong possibility not all 14 Big 10 Teams will even be able to participate, unless the pandemic takes a strong turn for the better.
No reason to have it if all 14 aren't involved. Why have a tournament with 8 teams already guaranteed the NCAA tournament? I think there is a 10% chance the tournament happens.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
No reason to have it if all 14 aren't involved. Why have a tournament with 8 teams already guaranteed the NCAA tournament? I think there is a 10% chance the tournament happens.
The CBS money for the Semis & Finals would be a reason to stage the event, but obviously not necessarily an overriding factor.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,675
Reaction score
368
Points
83
No reason to have it if all 14 aren't involved. Why have a tournament with 8 teams already guaranteed the NCAA tournament? I think there is a 10% chance the tournament happens.
Barring a total collapse of healthy teams, they will play the Big Ten Tournament. TV and sponsorship money is too much to turn away when money is hard to come by. With money in short supply already, I promise you the Big Ten does not want to send refund checks to TV and to tourney sponsors. They will do everything they can to play the tourney. They will bubble in Indy and play it as safely as they can.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
Barring a total collapse of healthy teams, they will play the Big Ten Tournament. TV and sponsorship money is too much to turn away when money is hard to come by. With money in short supply already, I promise you the Big Ten does not want to send refund checks to TV and to tourney sponsors. They will do everything they can to play the tourney. They will bubble in Indy and play it as safely as they can.
What sponsorship money will there be if there are not any or minimal fans?

TV money from CBS is for the final 3 games, otherwise it's their own network.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,675
Reaction score
368
Points
83
What sponsorship money will there be if there are not any or minimal fans?

TV money from CBS is for the final 3 games, otherwise it's their own network.
Do you think their own network hasn't sold those games to sponsors??? Sponsorship money from the Big Ten tourney games shown on BTN is one of their biggest revenue streams. If those game don't air, they either don't get that sponsorship money, or have to refund it if they already have it.

Plus, have you noticed the strategically placed signage around basketball floors that show up on TV? Those signs aren't put there out of the goodness of their hearts. They are sold for money.
 

Some guy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 1, 2014
Messages
8,745
Reaction score
1,815
Points
113
Correct, but it's 49% owned by the Big 10.
Yeah. But it’s 51% owned by fox.
The big ten does not directly get ad revenue from the big ten network.

the big ten network gets revenue and then the big ten shares in overall profits
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
Do you think their own network hasn't sold those games to sponsors??? Sponsorship money from the Big Ten tourney games shown on BTN is one of their biggest revenue streams. If those game don't air, they either don't get that sponsorship money, or have to refund it if they already have it.

Plus, have you noticed the strategically placed signage around basketball floors that show up on TV? Those signs aren't put there out of the goodness of their hearts. They are sold for money.
Actually, for previous Big 10 Tournament games specifically, on TV, no I have not really noticed strategically placed signage either actually on the court or digitally. Without fans, I am sure there would be opportunities to enhance such signage.

Of the dozen of so Tourney's I have been to in person, the sponsorship hits one with subtly like a ton of bricks. Every 3pt shot, kiss cam, time-out & court cleaner kid is sponsored by Sunkist, Meijer, Mercedes, Libman et al. That was where I was drawing my question from.

If staging the Tourney makes financial sense, then yes that would be a huge factor in going forward with it. I am just not that convinced that with the added costs and risks that it's worth it to stage a 14 team event. Time will tell.
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,675
Reaction score
368
Points
83
Actually, for previous Big 10 Tournament games specifically, on TV, no I have not really noticed strategically placed signage either actually on the court or digitally. Without fans, I am sure there would be opportunities to enhance such signage.

Of the dozen of so Tourney's I have been to in person, the sponsorship hits one with subtly like a ton of bricks. Every 3pt shot, kiss cam, time-out & court cleaner kid is sponsored by Sunkist, Meijer, Mercedes, Libman et al. That was where I was drawing my question from.

If staging the Tourney makes financial sense, then yes that would be a huge factor in going forward with it. I am just not that convinced that with the added costs and risks that it's worth it to stage a 14 team event. Time will tell.
I'm mainly talking about the TV sponsorship the Big Ten Network has sold for those games. You know the commercials that play during BTN's broadcast. It is significant revenue and they want to keep it. No tourney means no TV sponsorship money. That's why they will do all they can to play the event.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
I'm mainly talking about the TV sponsorship the Big Ten Network has sold for those games. You know the commercials that play during BTN's broadcast. It is significant revenue and they want to keep it. No tourney means no TV sponsorship money. That's why they will do all they can to play the event.
I get that, obviously. But no Tourney also means no expenses for sending however many teams' travelling parties, officials, Big 10 staff, TV crews, medical staff, security etc to Chicago (or wherever they potentially move it to). What the break even point is, I have no idea.

For the afternoon games on Wed & Thur, I wonder what the rating difference would be re-running a "Best of the Big 10 Tourney Game" with commentary from players/coaches compared to a live contest.
 
Last edited:

Otis

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
4,170
Reaction score
921
Points
113
I get that, obviously. But no Tourney also means no expenses for sending however many teams' travelling parties, officials, Big 10 staff, TV crews, medical staff, security etc to Chicago (or wherever they potentially move it to). What the break even point is, I have no idea.
I think they are almost forced to attempt a tournament with the monster TV contract the B1G has!

Question:

If the B1G has their tournament in Indianapolis. Do the teams expecting to get into the tournament just stay there in a bubble. And get to practice at the venues?
 

UpAndUnder43

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 3, 2017
Messages
6,637
Reaction score
2,267
Points
113
I think they are almost forced to attempt a tournament with the monster TV contract the B1G has!

Question:

If the B1G has their tournament in Indianapolis. Do the teams expecting to get into the tournament just stay there in a bubble. And get to practice at the venues?
I think it depends on dates for the tourney. Lets say the Gophers lose on saturday of the B1G Tourney, they wouldn't play for 7-8 days, so I bet they'd head back to Minneapolis, so the players can attend Spring Jam/go to Cancun/etc before winning the NCAA title.

Just my hunch.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
This CBS article today indicates 27% of NCAA coaches surveyed are in favor of skipping Conf Tourneys. Niko Medved is quoted prominently.

Based on the estimated revenue that the Big 10 makes, "north of $1million", split 14 ways, I don't see how that moves the needle much.

 

gophereric30

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
956
Reaction score
354
Points
63
An interesting thing is you have to test negative for 7 days(I THINK) to be in ncaa tournament. Will it be worth it for teams already in to take a chance and play in conference tourney?
 

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,972
Reaction score
4,395
Points
113
Actually, for previous Big 10 Tournament games specifically, on TV, no I have not really noticed strategically placed signage either actually on the court or digitally. Without fans, I am sure there would be opportunities to enhance such signage.

Of the dozen of so Tourney's I have been to in person, the sponsorship hits one with subtly like a ton of bricks. Every 3pt shot, kiss cam, time-out & court cleaner kid is sponsored by Sunkist, Meijer, Mercedes, Libman et al. That was where I was drawing my question from.

If staging the Tourney makes financial sense, then yes that would be a huge factor in going forward with it. I am just not that convinced that with the added costs and risks that it's worth it to stage a 14 team event. Time will tell.
Those sponsors hit only in person fans. A very small number in comparison to the tv audience. I have little doubt that the BTT would be more than financially viable even without spectators.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
Those sponsors hit only in person fans. A very small number in comparison to the tv audience. I have little doubt that the BTT would be more than financially viable even without spectators.
The ticket packages for the event are usually roughly $300 and have nearly sold out in recent years. Chicago UC holds 22,000, but just using 20,000 were talking $6million gone. Corporate suites would also be gone, whatever that brings in, plus are used as sweetners for said sponsors.

The CBS article I subsequently posted, quoted the Big 10 made "north of $1million".

Relying on TV revenue alone, sure that would likely be a net positive. Not much though, in my view, especially divided amongst the schools.

Is it worth the risk for teams headed for the NCAA? I highly question that it is.
 

builtbadgers

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 12, 2012
Messages
6,971
Reaction score
2,526
Points
113
I think it depends on dates for the tourney. Lets say the Gophers lose on saturday of the B1G Tourney, they wouldn't play for 7-8 days, so I bet they'd head back to Minneapolis, so the players can attend Spring Jam/go to Cancun/etc before winning the NCAA title.

Just my hunch.
Way better chance of winning the NCAA then going to Cancun.
 

Holy Man

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
3,901
Reaction score
351
Points
83
This CBS article today indicates 27% of NCAA coaches surveyed are in favor of skipping Conf Tourneys. Niko Medved is quoted prominently.

Based on the estimated revenue that the Big 10 makes, "north of $1million", split 14 ways, I don't see how that moves the needle much.

When I read the "north of $1 Million" line I first thought it might have been for each team, not split 14 ways. If it is split 14 ways, one has to wonder if it is worth doing ever from a financial standpoint. It would seem like $100,000 per program would be a rounding error in most budgets.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
When I read the "north of $1 Million" line I first thought it might have been for each team, not split 14 ways. If it is split 14 ways, one has to wonder if it is worth doing ever from a financial standpoint. It would seem like $100,000 per program would be a rounding error in most budgets.
I thought the same thing, or maybe Championship Game only? Just TV cash?Not real clear. I would guess the CBS money is baked into the overall annual TV rights package.

I suppose there's other ways it's monetized in normal years, incentives for donors, sponsors, business partners, etc.

Also there's the exposure benefit. Plus as you and I know, the event is a blast...an amazing appetizer for the main event to come. Quarter Final Friday is one of my favorite days of the year, especially when the Gophers are playing.

Heck, my avatar is a picture from a joyous BTT Friday afternoon.
 
Last edited:

stocker08

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2009
Messages
22,972
Reaction score
4,395
Points
113
The ticket packages for the event are usually roughly $300 and have nearly sold out in recent years. Chicago UC holds 22,000, but just using 20,000 were talking $6million gone. Corporate suites would also be gone, whatever that brings in, plus are used as sweetners for said sponsors.

The CBS article I subsequently posted, quoted the Big 10 made "north of $1million".

Relying on TV revenue alone, sure that would likely be a net positive. Not much though, in my view, especially divided amongst the schools.

Is it worth the risk for teams headed for the NCAA? I highly question that it is.
Right. But I was talking about in person advertising. It's not worth more depending on how much people pay. As you said.....a 20,000 person arena.....there will be a TON more eyes on television advertisements.
 

Ope3

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
2,106
Reaction score
636
Points
113
Right. But I was talking about in person advertising. It's not worth more depending on how much people pay. As you said.....a 20,000 person arena.....there will be a TON more eyes on television advertisements.
I don't dispute that TV revenue/sponsors is more than in arena sponsors.

My point was when losing the ticket revenue (approx $6million) and to whatever lesser extent in house sponsors that the cash cow is greatly reduced.

Enough to kabosh the event or go forward with the risks involved? Don't know. We'll see.
 
Top Bottom