|
Post by knapplc on Aug 12, 2020 10:42:46 GMT -5
Nebraska puts BTN into the rest of the nation. The two are not equal. You may not believe that, but the Big Ten knows it, and thus knows Nebraska's value. That's . . . not true? Look, I think it was smart to add Nebraska *and* Rutgers (lol) when they did. The last realignment necessitated every league taking an aggressive approach. Nebraska makes a lot of sense for the B1G. Passionate fanbase, traditional power, etc. There's no doubt Nebraska is getting the better part of that deal, though. They wouldn't come close to the same TV money in another conference. If they jumped back to the Big XII (who I'm sure would be happy to have them) the Big XII TV deal isn't going to magically increase to anywhere near B1G money and the B1G would find someone to take their place. It... IS true, which is why the Big Ten jumped at the chance to add Nebraska. We're a national brand, and the Nebraska diaspora means fans in all markets across the country. Don't get me wrong - none of this is to say that Nebraska is about to use any leverage to quit the league. That'd be foolish, and we know we are WAY better off in the Big Ten than anywhere else. If anything, Frost's (and the Admin's) recent comments may hint that they'd seek permission from the league to play some form of football this fall. That's all anyone should take from this. There is zero ZERO chance that Nebraska leaves the Big Ten, or wants to.
|
|
|
Post by northwoods on Aug 12, 2020 10:42:47 GMT -5
Rutgers puts BTN onto NY/NJ cable packages. That's their value, regardless of whether people watch or not. Nebraska puts BTN into the rest of the nation. The two are not equal. You may not believe that, but the Big Ten knows it, and thus knows Nebraska's value. Nebraska Athletics means nothing to anyone outside of Nebraska.... The misperception that it does is because Nebraska Athletics means EVERYTHING to everyone IN Nebraska. That said, now would be the time to bolt if the ACC or SEC will have you.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 12, 2020 10:47:55 GMT -5
Nebraska puts BTN into the rest of the nation. The two are not equal. You may not believe that, but the Big Ten knows it, and thus knows Nebraska's value. Nebraska Athletics means nothing to anyone outside of Nebraska.... The misperception that it does is because Nebraska Athletics means EVERYTHING to everyone IN Nebraska. That said, now would be the time to bolt if the ACC or SEC will have you. I mean... sure? In the same way that Michigan athletics means nothing to anyone outside of Michigan, or Iowa's outside of Iowa. So in that sense, great point. But if you're talking eyeballs on TV, that's demonstrably not the case.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Aug 12, 2020 10:52:35 GMT -5
Does anyone think the B1G would worry for even a second if Nebraska left the conference over this? Depending on the timing, they could potentially add replacement schools like Kansas, Oklahoma, and/or Texas, and not even blink.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 12, 2020 10:54:06 GMT -5
Does anyone think the B1G would worry for even a second if Nebraska left the conference over this? Depending on the timing, they could potentially add replacement schools like Kansas, Oklahoma, and/or Texas, and not even blink. Which is one of the myriad reasons why Nebraska isn't going to leave the league.
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Aug 12, 2020 10:57:25 GMT -5
Nebraska Athletics means nothing to anyone outside of Nebraska.... The misperception that it does is because Nebraska Athletics means EVERYTHING to everyone IN Nebraska. That said, now would be the time to bolt if the ACC or SEC will have you. I mean... sure? In the same way that Michigan athletics means nothing to anyone outside of Michigan, or Iowa's outside of Iowa. So in that sense, great point. But if you're talking eyeballs on TV, that's demonstrably not the case. As long as you ignore 5 times the population, 4 times the GDP and the center of one of the larger and better known industries, then yup, you are right on. Compare to Iowa, sure, but Iowa is a legacy. Comparing to Michigan is just delusional.
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 12, 2020 10:59:41 GMT -5
Nebraska Athletics means nothing to anyone outside of Nebraska.... The misperception that it does is because Nebraska Athletics means EVERYTHING to everyone IN Nebraska. That said, now would be the time to bolt if the ACC or SEC will have you. I mean... sure? In the same way that Michigan athletics means nothing to anyone outside of Michigan, or Iowa's outside of Iowa. So in that sense, great point. But if you're talking eyeballs on TV, that's demonstrably not the case. Well, no, because Michigan and Iowa are actually pretty good at basketball and football the past few years. Nebraska only tops the ratings when they play good teams or snag a primetime spot. Michigan especially is a weird comparison.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 12, 2020 10:59:58 GMT -5
I mean... sure? In the same way that Michigan athletics means nothing to anyone outside of Michigan, or Iowa's outside of Iowa. So in that sense, great point. But if you're talking eyeballs on TV, that's demonstrably not the case. As long as you ignore 5 times the population, 4 times the GDP and the center of one of the larger and better known industries, then yup, you are right on. Compare to Iowa, sure, but Iowa is a legacy. Comparing to Michigan is just delusional. You know who disagrees with you? The Big Ten. Which is why they jumped at the chance to add Nebraska. Stop equating football success with TV ratings.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,903
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 12, 2020 11:08:46 GMT -5
I would still bet against even the SEC ultimately playing this year. All of this discussion may end up being moot. I think the ACC, SEC and Big 12 are still just kicking the can down the road at this point and are not at all confident in being able to play. I agree with this. I think they are hesitating because they are getting such blowback, but they will give in eventually. One thing to consider -- the vast majority of the players are African American, and COVID has hit that segment of the population particularly hard - with the disparity getting larger in younger groups, apparently. No one is sure why yet, but, if it is not a risk to the players themselves, it is a risk to their families and friends and to the larger community. And we're not going to be able to pull off bubbles in college football. So does playing football increase, reduce, or not change the risk to their families? I guess the answer depends - but unless those players are in lockdown, I just don't see them being better off not playing football for the risk to their families?
|
|
|
Post by yupyupyup on Aug 12, 2020 11:16:24 GMT -5
I agree with this. I think they are hesitating because they are getting such blowback, but they will give in eventually. One thing to consider -- the vast majority of the players are African American, and COVID has hit that segment of the population particularly hard - with the disparity getting larger in younger groups, apparently. No one is sure why yet, but, if it is not a risk to the players themselves, it is a risk to their families and friends and to the larger community. And we're not going to be able to pull off bubbles in college football. So does playing football increase, reduce, or not change the risk to their families? I guess the answer depends - but unless those players are in lockdown, I just don't see them being better off not playing football for the risk to their families? I don’t follow this at all.
|
|
|
Post by dman on Aug 12, 2020 11:19:44 GMT -5
I agree with this. I think they are hesitating because they are getting such blowback, but they will give in eventually. One thing to consider -- the vast majority of the players are African American, and COVID has hit that segment of the population particularly hard - with the disparity getting larger in younger groups, apparently. No one is sure why yet, but, if it is not a risk to the players themselves, it is a risk to their families and friends and to the larger community. And we're not going to be able to pull off bubbles in college football. So does playing football increase, reduce, or not change the risk to their families? I guess the answer depends - but unless those players are in lockdown, I just don't see them being better off not playing football for the risk to their families? Right, these kids are in a bubble among their peers and away from mom/dad/grandma unless a commuter; which I would think would not be many.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,903
|
Post by bluepenquin on Aug 12, 2020 11:24:01 GMT -5
thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/I always refer to this 2011 study on the impact a football program can bring to a conference and sort of answers many of the why conferences made their decisions. According to this - Nebraska brings in a similar number of people as Iowa. More than Illinois, Michigan State, and Minnesota. Less than Wisconsin and the Power 3 (Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State). Nebraska is similar to Oklahoma - not that close to Texas, better than Missouri/Kansas. Texas A&M was a huge get for the SEC.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2020 11:24:48 GMT -5
So does playing football increase, reduce, or not change the risk to their families? I guess the answer depends - but unless those players are in lockdown, I just don't see them being better off not playing football for the risk to their families? Right, these kids are in a bubble among their peers and away from mom/dad/grandma unless a commuter; which I would think would not be many. Until they have high speed collisions, swapping spit and blood with others.
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Aug 12, 2020 11:25:19 GMT -5
So does playing football increase, reduce, or not change the risk to their families? I guess the answer depends - but unless those players are in lockdown, I just don't see them being better off not playing football for the risk to their families? I don’t follow this at all. Playing football while being housed in a highly monitored dorm witnesses getting tested multiple times a week is probably safer than cancelling the football season and leaving athletes to their own devices. I can’t imagine schools will continue the strict testing protocols with no season to generate the revenue to necessitate it. Some schools could send athletes home. Those scenarios might not result in fewer people contracting COVID.
|
|
|
Post by knapplc on Aug 12, 2020 11:31:04 GMT -5
thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/I always refer to this 2011 study on the impact a football program can bring to a conference and sort of answers many of the why conferences made their decisions. According to this - Nebraska brings in a similar number of people as Iowa. More than Illinois, Michigan State, and Minnesota. Less than Wisconsin and the Power 3 (Michigan, Penn State, Ohio State). Nebraska is similar to Oklahoma - not that close to Texas, better than Missouri/Kansas. Texas A&M was a huge get for the SEC. That's good stuff. I'll bet if they redid that today, Nebraska would be a peg lower, Oklahoma would be a peg higher, and A&M would be about as big now as then. For Nebraska, winning is not everything. But if we were to start winning some more football games, that rating would go back up a bit.
|
|