Lincoln Journal Star: lawsuit alleges cover-up of Nebraska football team sexual assaults

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
1,584
Points
113
They've largely failed and I would dare say have taken more from the Big Ten financially than they've boosted value of the conference products nationally.
What is the math here?

One of the B1G selling points early on was that the B1G was making way more money on Minnesota vs Purdue being on BTN (when that was not a game anyone wanted to watch) than when it was relegated to a low paying ESPN2 / the ocho...
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,349
Reaction score
2,051
Points
113
Any data that backs up these claims about the BIG essentially losing money on Nebraska, or just making assumptions?
What is the math here?

One of the B1G selling points early on was that the B1G was making way more money on Minnesota vs Purdue being on BTN (when that was not a game anyone wanted to watch) than when it was relegated to a low paying ESPN2 / the ocho...
I doubt that data is public. BTN is a private company, they aren't required to share their balance sheets.


It's just fine as a thought experiment. The Big Ten added a 12th member, split into divisions, and started having a championship game. Nebraska has only made the game once, and it was the worst attended champ game in its history. Don't know what TV viewership for it was.

What would've been the Value Above Replacement, for schools like Iowa St, Missouri, etc. Impossible to say for sure, fun to think about.
 

Gophers1992

Active member
Joined
Oct 8, 2019
Messages
179
Reaction score
156
Points
43
I doubt that data is public. BTN is a private company, they aren't required to share their balance sheets.


It's just fine as a thought experiment. The Big Ten added a 12th member, split into divisions, and started having a championship game. Nebraska has only made the game once, and it was the worst attended champ game in its history. Don't know what TV viewership for it was.

What would've been the Value Above Replacement, for schools like Iowa St, Missouri, etc. Impossible to say for sure, fun to think about.
Impossible to say, but I'm sure that won't stop you from presenting your illogical assumption as fact!
 

hungan1

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
9,942
Reaction score
718
Points
113
This really helps Scott Frost recruit. :unsure: It is amazing some kids still want to commit.

Heads should roll in the Nebraska athletics department at a bare minimum.
 

die hard gopher

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2013
Messages
8,710
Reaction score
161
Points
63
Totally agree. I don't see the big ten as an eastern conference.
I would love to have Iowa State and Missouri in the Big Ten too.
I've always thought it'd be great to trade Rutgers and Maryland for Iowa State and Notre Dame or even Cincinatti, just to keep that midwestern footprint. I don't like thinking of the Big Ten as an eastern conference, I want them to stay in the midwest.
 

Word

Eats difficult conversations
Joined
Jun 7, 2009
Messages
6,155
Reaction score
821
Points
113
I've always thought it'd be great to trade Rutgers and Maryland for Iowa State and Notre Dame or even Cincinatti, just to keep that midwestern footprint. I don't like thinking of the Big Ten as an eastern conference, I want them to stay in the midwest.
Missouri doesn't seem as midwestern per se, but it's only an 8 hour drive to Columbia. Nice campus too.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
1,584
Points
113
I've always thought it'd be great to trade Rutgers and Maryland for Iowa State and Notre Dame or even Cincinatti, just to keep that midwestern footprint. I don't like thinking of the Big Ten as an eastern conference, I want them to stay in the midwest.
I think of they could have brought Notre Dame on board they would have a LONG time ago ;)
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
1,584
Points
113
Missouri doesn't seem as midwestern per se, but it's only an 8 hour drive to Columbia. Nice campus too.
I always thought it would be great to have a Paddle Boat (or row boat ..) series where the teams take boats to travel between University of Minnesota and University of Missouri ;)
 

tjgopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
4,482
Reaction score
156
Points
63
They've largely failed and I would dare say have taken more from the Big Ten financially than they've boosted value of the conference products nationally.
BTN only got to be added to cable systems in the state of Nebraska (and maybe Sioux City and Coucil Bluffs type communities) because of adding UNL to the conference. That was not worth that much.

I would say there is next to a zero chance the Big Ten is losing money on Nebraska. First of all, Nebraska didn't even receive a full share of the pot in the first six years as part of the deal, so they didn't get the full $50m+ until 2018.

Secondly, the BTN gets most of its money based on cable TV subscribers. That is why Nebraska made way more sense than Iowa State for example. All subscribers in Iowa already are paying for BTN, because of the Hawkeyes. Iowa State presented no chance of increase in revenue, none.

No one in Nebraska (or New Jersey or Maryland) was paying for BTN before they joined. It is estimated each subscription nets between $.50-$2 per subscriber per month for the BTN. And, in Nebraska that was going to be on the basic tier, meaning it was likely closer to $2 per subscriber than $.50 per subscriber. So let's say it was netting the BTN a conservative $1 per month per subscriber in Nebraska (give or take). Let's estimate there are 1.5m cable TV subscribers in Nebraska. That would net the BTN about $1.5m per month and roughly $18 million per year generated from subscriptions in Nebraska. That doesn't count the subscription revenue from Dish Network or DirecTV. *These numbers are total ballpark and could be off by quite a bit, but if they are off, they are conservative and BTN is likely making more than the estimate presented here. So, the bottom line is Nebraska was invited because the BTN knew it would get money every month from every Nebraska person, period. It was a huge opportunity for revenue. Simply put, it is worth millions and millions. That also doesn't count the thousands of people in Nebraska, where Husker volleyball and baseball is huge, who pay $10 per month for the BTN+/Fox Sports app to watch those games.

Then you add in increased ratings for football, which means potential increased ad revenue, and increased licensing revenue for the Big Ten through that, etc. That's a big chunk that Nebraska brings to the conference and why it was invited.
 
Last edited:

Plato

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
458
Reaction score
257
Points
63
Any data that backs up these claims about the BIG essentially losing money on Nebraska, or just making assumptions?
If you really care that much about NE all you have to do is take the number of NE cable subscribers to the BTN, multiply what they pay for the BTN after Fox takes their cut and then subtract what the BTN gives to NE.
I suspect without any solid data the NE is a wash for for the BTN.
The more important issue is what have they brought to the BIG?
To me the answer is nothing but that is opinion and nothing else.
 

A_Slab_of_Bacon

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 21, 2015
Messages
14,480
Reaction score
1,584
Points
113
Well, they do have Notre Dame in the Big 10... in hockey
Probably as close as they can get. ND football likes their variety schedule.

Next up we need University of Chicago back in hockey too...
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,349
Reaction score
2,051
Points
113
Probably as close as they can get. ND football likes their variety schedule.

Next up we need University of Chicago back in hockey too...
Notre Dame has pretty much always had three different affiliations in football, basketball, and hockey.

It was fully independent, Big East, and WCHA/CCHA for many years.

They could've gone to the new Big East, but their "one foot, most of the way in" deal with the ACC gives them a place to quickly hop into if there ever comes a day where only conference champions can get into the CFP or something like that, plus some access to bowls, and some access to former Big East teams (Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College most namely).

And then Big Ten hockey is the most logical modern place for them extending from WCHA/CCHA days, although they did try to force an arrangement with Hockey East first, which failed.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,349
Reaction score
2,051
Points
113
I would say there is next to a zero chance the Big Ten is losing money on Nebraska. First of all, Nebraska didn't even receive a full share of the pot in the first six years as part of the deal, so they didn't get the full $50m+ until 2018.
This alone is a good point, for looking backwards from now. I concede to you, on this point.

Looking backwards, because of the "vesting period" for Nebraska to start earning a full share, then it probably is less likely that the Big Ten "lost money" on Nebraska over the 2011-12 through 2019-20 fiscal years, in an absolute sense.

Secondly, the BTN gets most of its money based on cable TV subscribers. That is why Nebraska made way more sense than Iowa State for example. All subscribers in Iowa already are paying for BTN, because of the Hawkeyes. Iowa State presented no chance of increase in revenue, none.

No one in Nebraska (or New Jersey or Maryland) was paying for BTN before they joined. It is estimated each subscription nets between $.50-$2 per subscriber per month for the BTN. And, in Nebraska that was going to be on the basic tier, meaning it was likely closer to $2 per subscriber than $.50 per subscriber. So let's say it was netting the BTN a conservative $1 per month per subscriber in Nebraska (give or take). Let's estimate there are 1.5m cable TV subscribers in Nebraska. That would net the BTN about $1.5m per month and roughly $18 million per year generated from subscriptions in Nebraska. That doesn't count the subscription revenue from Dish Network or DirecTV. *These numbers are total ballpark and could be off by quite a bit, but if they are off, they are conservative and BTN is likely making more than the estimate presented here. So, the bottom line is Nebraska was invited because the BTN knew it would get money every month from every Nebraska person, period. It was a huge opportunity for revenue. Simply put, it is worth millions and millions. That also doesn't count the thousands of people in Nebraska, where Husker volleyball and baseball is huge, who pay $10 per month for the BTN+/Fox Sports app to watch those games.
Nebraska population is less than 2M. So there's almost zero chance that there are or even were 1.5M traditional pay TV accounts in the state. That's going to be much closer to the number of households, which I'm guessing is more like 500k or something along those lines.

Regardless, your point about Iowa State stands. It's highly unlikely that there were many, if any, traditional pay TV subscribers in Iowa that weren't already getting BTN included in the same bundle tier as ESPN/2.

Iowa St only would've been better than Nebraska in the sense of being more competitive on the football field (which is a sad, true reality at this point), much more competitive on the MBB court, and being a member of the academic powerhouse AAU organization, which Nebraska was kicked out of.

Then you add in increased ratings for football, which means potential increased ad revenue, and increased licensing revenue for the Big Ten through that, etc. That's a big chunk that Nebraska brings to the conference and why it was invited.
It was not invited for the revenue that the Big Ten and BTN could generate out of the state of Nebraska. As you've shown, that revenue is certainly non-zero (of course), but relatively it's always going to be small, due to the small population size of Nebraska itself.

Nebraska was invited for two reasons: 1) to be (another) national championship contending football program, and 2) to attract national TV viewership to the Big Ten football product, both conference games and especially non-conference (post-season) games.

That is why they got the nod. And they have failed miserably.



Bringing me to what my main point would be now: looking forward, as Nebraska football is being flushed down the toilet in terms of on-field competitiveness, as national college football viewers think less and less about Nebraska football, as Nebraska MBB continues to be an absolute stinker (despite rabid fan support, begging Lincoln to give them a good team in something that matters, and a brand new arena), then I don't think it's any stretch of the imagination that Nebraska is a net taker from the Big Ten.


And the best point: what would've been the VAR of Missouri, if we would've added them instead? Much larger state, many more in-state pay TV subscribers. They've turned out to be more competitive on the football field, and certainly more competitive on the court. And they are in the AAU.

We can only think about it for fun, at this point.
 
Last edited:

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,349
Reaction score
2,051
Points
113
Exactly, which is why your claims were so ridiculous
Of course not. Logical arguments are valid, when data isn't available.

Keep throwing out your lazy posts though. Don't put in a single iota of effort to explain why you disagree.
 

50PoundHead

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
7,167
Reaction score
141
Points
63
Totally agree. I don't see the big ten as an eastern conference.
I would love to have Iowa State and Missouri in the Big Ten too.
I thought going south and making it a Midwest conference would have been the way go, but on the other hand, Michigan and Ohio are closer to Pennsylvania than they are to Nebraska. Rutgers was the outlier to me.
 

Livingat45north

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2013
Messages
2,816
Reaction score
866
Points
113
Drop the corn people from the B1G and add Navy. There's Navy "Alumni" everywhere, and a lot of them (meaning people that were in the Navy). Also, add Toronto to the B1G hockey conference, we'd get a lot of Canadian viewers.
 

Plato

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 14, 2019
Messages
458
Reaction score
257
Points
63
Drop the corn people from the B1G and add Navy. There's Navy "Alumni" everywhere, and a lot of them (meaning people that were in the Navy). Also, add Toronto to the B1G hockey conference, we'd get a lot of Canadian viewers.
I presume those comments were made in jest.
 

Pete smith

Active member
Joined
Sep 12, 2017
Messages
709
Reaction score
42
Points
28
Some of you are the under misguided opinion that future football players at Nebraska will go elsewhere because of supposed scandal forthcoming. Unless it is the death penalty or bowl elimination, unfortunately Nebraska will still sign players we could use.
 

MplsGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 4, 2017
Messages
14,349
Reaction score
2,051
Points
113
Drop the corn people from the B1G and add Navy. There's Navy "Alumni" everywhere, and a lot of them (meaning people that were in the Navy). Also, add Toronto to the B1G hockey conference, we'd get a lot of Canadian viewers.
ACC and SEC teams are off limits because of the grant of rights and their deals with ESPN.

Big XII teams don't have a GOR. And obviously any American Athletic Conf team would do a backflip for a call-up. There are also some independents, but Notre Dame will not join (plus they have ACC agreement too).

If we dumped Nebraska, I think the most likely schools they'd want to look at would be:
Kansas
Oklahoma
Texas
and I'll throw in a northeastern school for fun: UConn


While it sounds sexy on paper, I don't think you can add Oklahoma or Texas without each other. Texas would be an easy add, since they're AAU. Oklahoma is not, it's even worse than Nebraska in research.

Kansas is AAU. Not much to offer in football, but obviously would add value in MBB.

UConn similar in that sense. Would be a "project" like Rutgers. But also like Rutgers (New Jersey), the state of Connecticut has a lot wealth and decent population. They are currently not AAU, but they "could be". They have a medical school (unlike Lincoln) and do a decent amount of research.


There supposedly is a requirement that new schools have to be in contiguous states to the current footprint. I have no idea if that's true or how much it would matter for "trading" Nebraska for Kansas.

There's also the idea that state politicians in Kansas might not want to split up KU and K-State. No idea if that would materialize or be any real barrier.



But overall, if it were me, I'd go with UConn, as crazy as that sounds. They'd be like a Rutgers/Maryland type of add. Going for the TV revenue for the BTN.

And it would let the East and West trade for Indiana, which is much more like a West type school and would rather play Purdue and Illinois, instead of losing to the Michigan's, Ohio St, and Penn St.
 

Veritas

Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
573
Points
113
Drop the corn people from the B1G and add Navy. There's Navy "Alumni" everywhere, and a lot of them (meaning people that were in the Navy). Also, add Toronto to the B1G hockey conference, we'd get a lot of Canadian viewers.
Canadian athletic departments do not offer full rides as is done here. Toronto would have to drop all sport affiliations with other Canadian schools. Not going to happen.
 

WAGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,992
Reaction score
125
Points
63
And it would let the East and West trade for Indiana, which is much more like a West type school and would rather play Purdue and Illinois, instead of losing to the Michigan's, Ohio St, and Penn St.
I like the idea of getting Purdue and Indiana in the same division. They have the only required football crossover game and it messes up the inter-division schedule for every other school.
 
Top Bottom