Welcome Guest! Create an Account login email: password: remember me: BASKETBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting FOOTBALL Latest News News Archive Schedule/Results Multi-Media Recruiting MESSAGE BOARD Message Home - Ohio Basketball - Ohio Basketball Recruiting - The O Zone - Ohio Football - Ohio Football Recruiting - Ohio Volleyball - Ohio Baseball - Ohio Olympic Sports... - General OU Discussion... - Website Feedback... - Posting Policy Edit My Profile Private Messages Logout CHAT LINKS site searchwhere to watchcontact usabout usadvertise with ushelp Message Board BobcatAttack.com Message Board Ohio Football Topic:  Who has conference realignment worked for? Topic:  Who has conference realignment worked for? Author Message Kevin Finnegan General User Member Since: 2/4/2005 Location: Rockton, IL Post Count: 1,084 Status: Offline     Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 10:00:40 AM  Thinking back about the conference realignment in the 2000s, I'm trying to picture who has benefitted athletically (not financially) from the moves. Missouri--from Big XII to SEC...haven't seen much positive from the move in basketball or football Nebraska--from Big XII to Big 10...their football team has become a shell of itself and basketball has never been impressive Virginia Tech--From Big East to ACC...their football team has won a couple of ACC titles (my brother recovered a fumble in one of the ACC title games for them!) and basketball is trending up, so maybe the move has benefitted, though their best football days were when they were still Big East with Vick. Maryland--from ACC to Big 10...nothing in football, other than scandals, and their basketball team is no longer a national powerhouse Rutgers--from Big East to Big 10...never been strong really either place, but I can't see them ever being competitive in the Big 10 Texas A & M--from Big XII to SEC...got a Heisman Trophy winner and some good pub, but they're not the elite within the conference and can't see that day coming Colorado--from Big 12 to Pac 10...they're nothing anymore, they seem irrelevant in both football and basketball now. They used to be a power in the 90s West Virginia--from Big East to Big XII...they've had decent football and basketball teams, but few rivalries. They feel more ACC aligned, but don't seem to be getting courted Pittsburgh--from Big East to ACC...they're decent this year, but their best basketball and football years far predated ACC entry Syracuse--from Big East to ACC...nothing in football over that time (remember when they used to be really good at football?) but the basketball team is still relevant. However, their national title came before joining ACC So question is, who has benefitted? **I only was looking at Power 5 conference moves (including Power 6 when Big East was a power), not mid-major to major conference, like Utah and TCU. Back to Top Pataskala General User Member Since: 7/8/2010 Location: At least six feet away from anybody else Post Count: 9,152 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 10:38:03 AM  The coffers of the SEC, B10 and ACC have been the big beneficiaries. The amount they charge for TV rights has skyrocketed. We will get by. We will get by. We will get by. We will survive. Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 6,910 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 10:48:01 AM  Kevin Finnegan wrote: Thinking back about the conference realignment in the 2000s, I'm trying to picture who has benefitted athletically (not financially) from the moves. Missouri--from Big XII to SEC...haven't seen much positive from the move in basketball or football Nebraska--from Big XII to Big 10...their football team has become a shell of itself and basketball has never been impressive Virginia Tech--From Big East to ACC...their football team has won a couple of ACC titles (my brother recovered a fumble in one of the ACC title games for them!) and basketball is trending up, so maybe the move has benefitted, though their best football days were when they were still Big East with Vick. Maryland--from ACC to Big 10...nothing in football, other than scandals, and their basketball team is no longer a national powerhouse Rutgers--from Big East to Big 10...never been strong really either place, but I can't see them ever being competitive in the Big 10 Texas A & M--from Big XII to SEC...got a Heisman Trophy winner and some good pub, but they're not the elite within the conference and can't see that day coming Colorado--from Big 12 to Pac 10...they're nothing anymore, they seem irrelevant in both football and basketball now. They used to be a power in the 90s West Virginia--from Big East to Big XII...they've had decent football and basketball teams, but few rivalries. They feel more ACC aligned, but don't seem to be getting courted Pittsburgh--from Big East to ACC...they're decent this year, but their best basketball and football years far predated ACC entry Syracuse--from Big East to ACC...nothing in football over that time (remember when they used to be really good at football?) but the basketball team is still relevant. However, their national title came before joining ACC So question is, who has benefitted? **I only was looking at Power 5 conference moves (including Power 6 when Big East was a power), not mid-major to major conference, like Utah and TCU. Missouri - won the SEC East twice in their first three seasons in league play in football. Could be argued they capitalized on a changing conference that hadn't yet seen the evolving spread offense and also Georgia/Florida weren't as powerful as normal. Since Gary Pinkel retired it's been an adventure to say the least. Basketball wise, meh. Nebraska - I don't think the struggles at Nebraska have as much to do with their conference affiliation as it does just other programs catching up with what they excelled at in the 90s - strength and conditioning. They simply just don't get the athletes they used to. (That being said both Missouri and Nebraska probably have regrets not associated to their bank accounts) Va Tech - has been a relative success all around, though they were on a downward trend in the last years of Beamer and it has continued since he's retired. Will be interesting to see if they can carve out that niche school vibe they had when they were most dominant. Maryland - yeah this has been a failure for sure. They just don't fit AT ALL. Rutgers - ditto Texas A&M - I can actually see flashes of them succeeding in the SEC. They've had their moments against Alabama, which is way more than Arkansas or Mississippi State can say. The alumni base is as hungry as they come, I'm just not sure investing in as much as they have with Jimbo is the answer. Colorado - they absolutely fit the culture of the PAC 12 more than they did the Big 12, but really the problem here is and always has been the city of Boulder and the faculty at CU. You think Athens and OU faculty are bad, Boulder is worse. Truthfully they probably fit better in an expanded Mountain West. Utah - more success in football than Colorado has had, but again I'm wondering what this program looks like once USC finally gets their act together in the PAC 12 South. West Virginia - I think we'll see a whole different WVU once the Big 12 gets their new allies. At the very least they've sustained what they've had and haven't gone into the basement like Rutgers or Maryland have. The patience will probably pay off here for the Neers. Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College - just felt like none of these teams fit in the ACC, though some have had their moments. Who has benefited? TCU - absolutely raised their profile in both basketball and football. Went from the WAC, to C-USA, to the MWC to the Big 12. They're probably one of the few all around successes of realignment. Still think they got hosed in 2014 and should have went to the CFP. Boise State - from killers of the WAC to killers of the MWC. ESPN, SEC, Big Ten, ACC - the real winners here. $$$$$$$$$ Back to Top colobobcat66 General User Member Since: 9/1/2006 Location: Watching the bobcats run outside my window., CO Post Count: 4,155 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 10:50:52 AM  GoCats105 wrote: Kevin Finnegan wrote: Thinking back about the conference realignment in the 2000s, I'm trying to picture who has benefitted athletically (not financially) from the moves. Missouri--from Big XII to SEC...haven't seen much positive from the move in basketball or football Nebraska--from Big XII to Big 10...their football team has become a shell of itself and basketball has never been impressive Virginia Tech--From Big East to ACC...their football team has won a couple of ACC titles (my brother recovered a fumble in one of the ACC title games for them!) and basketball is trending up, so maybe the move has benefitted, though their best football days were when they were still Big East with Vick. Maryland--from ACC to Big 10...nothing in football, other than scandals, and their basketball team is no longer a national powerhouse Rutgers--from Big East to Big 10...never been strong really either place, but I can't see them ever being competitive in the Big 10 Texas A & M--from Big XII to SEC...got a Heisman Trophy winner and some good pub, but they're not the elite within the conference and can't see that day coming Colorado--from Big 12 to Pac 10...they're nothing anymore, they seem irrelevant in both football and basketball now. They used to be a power in the 90s West Virginia--from Big East to Big XII...they've had decent football and basketball teams, but few rivalries. They feel more ACC aligned, but don't seem to be getting courted Pittsburgh--from Big East to ACC...they're decent this year, but their best basketball and football years far predated ACC entry Syracuse--from Big East to ACC...nothing in football over that time (remember when they used to be really good at football?) but the basketball team is still relevant. However, their national title came before joining ACC So question is, who has benefitted? **I only was looking at Power 5 conference moves (including Power 6 when Big East was a power), not mid-major to major conference, like Utah and TCU. Missouri - won the SEC East twice in their first three seasons in league play in football. Could be argued they capitalized on a changing conference that hadn't yet seen the evolving spread offense and also Georgia/Florida weren't as powerful as normal. Since Gary Pinkel retired it's been an adventure to say the least. Basketball wise, meh. Nebraska - I don't think the struggles at Nebraska have as much to do with their conference affiliation as it does just other programs catching up with what they excelled at in the 90s - strength and conditioning. They simply just don't get the athletes they used to. (That being said both Missouri and Nebraska probably have regrets not associated to their bank accounts) Va Tech - has been a relative success all around, though they were on a downward trend in the last years of Beamer and it has continued since he's retired. Will be interesting to see if they can carve out that niche school vibe they had when they were most dominant. Maryland - yeah this has been a failure for sure. They just don't fit AT ALL. Rutgers - ditto Texas A&M - I can actually see flashes of them succeeding in the SEC. They've had their moments against Alabama, which is way more than Arkansas or Mississippi State can say. The alumni base is as hungry as they come, I'm just not sure investing in as much as they have with Jimbo is the answer. Colorado - they absolutely fit the culture of the PAC 12 more than they did the Big 12, but really the problem here is and always has been the city of Boulder and the faculty at CU. You think Athens and OU faculty are bad, Boulder is worse. Truthfully they probably fit better in an expanded Mountain West. Utah - more success in football than Colorado has had, but again I'm wondering what this program looks like once USC finally gets their act together in the PAC 12 South. West Virginia - I think we'll see a whole different WVU once the Big 12 gets their new allies. At the very least they've sustained what they've had and haven't gone into the basement like Rutgers or Maryland have. The patience will probably pay off here for the Neers. Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College - just felt like none of these teams fit in the ACC, though some have had their moments. Who has benefited? TCU - absolutely raised their profile in both basketball and football. Went from the WAC, to C-USA, to the MWC to the Big 12. They're probably one of the few all around successes of realignment. Still think they got hosed in 2014 and should have went to the CFP. Boise State - from killers of the WAC to killers of the MWC. ESPN, SEC, Big Ten, ACC - the real winners here. $$$$$$$$$ Excellent post. Can’t argue much with anything you said. Back to Top greencat General User Member Since: 3/12/2005 Post Count: 2,036 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 2:22:15 PM  Maryland was one of the first schools people thought of when they heard "ACC" so I was really stunned when they bolted. Worst mistake for them since not elevating James Franklin from associate head coach to permanent head coach that time. They wrote him a million dollar check and sent him on his way.... to Vandy where he promptly went to 3 straight bowls (first time in school history) and had back to back 9 win seasons (first time in school history). OOPS! Back to Top OhioCatFan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Athens, OH Post Count: 14,016 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 2:48:37 PM  greencat wrote: Maryland was one of the first schools people thought of when they heard "ACC" so I was really stunned when they bolted. Worst mistake for them since not elevating James Franklin from associate head coach to permanent head coach that time. They wrote him a million dollar check and sent him on his way.... to Vandy where he promptly went to 3 straight bowls (first time in school history) and had back to back 9 win seasons (first time in school history). OOPS! I've sometimes wondered if RU and Maryland might try to join another conference and leave the B1G. That would, of course, require admitting they'd made a mistake, so probably not likely. And, maybe the money is so lucrative that they can't afford to leave. The only BLSS Certified Hypocrite on BA "It is better to be an optimist and be proven a fool than to be a pessimist and be proven right." Note: My avatar is the national colors of the 78th Ohio Veteran Volunteer Infantry, which are now preserved in a climate controlled vault at the Ohio History Connection. Learn more about the old 78th at: http://www.78ohio.org Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 6,910 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 3:36:47 PM  OhioCatFan wrote: greencat wrote: Maryland was one of the first schools people thought of when they heard "ACC" so I was really stunned when they bolted. Worst mistake for them since not elevating James Franklin from associate head coach to permanent head coach that time. They wrote him a million dollar check and sent him on his way.... to Vandy where he promptly went to 3 straight bowls (first time in school history) and had back to back 9 win seasons (first time in school history). OOPS! I've sometimes wondered if RU and Maryland might try to join another conference and leave the B1G. That would, of course, require admitting they'd made a mistake, so probably not likely. And, maybe the money is so lucrative that they can't afford to leave. The B1G makes more money than the SEC I believe. They'd be taking a huge paycut. Back to Top Kevin Finnegan General User Member Since: 2/4/2005 Location: Rockton, IL Post Count: 1,084 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 4:34:47 PM  I think the bigger question for the Big 10 is, why keep Rutgers and Maryland? I hear the Baltimore/NYC markets, but with so many people using streaming to watch events, do markets matter as much anymore? The other schools are having to split their money with Rutgers and Maryland. If I were OSU, I'd be pissed that they're getting as large a check from TV deals (assuming they are). I don't think that losing either of them would affect their bottom lines. WVU seems a far better fit (unsure of academically) for Big 10 than either of those schools. With the money being thrown around, I'm surprised bottom-feeders in conferences are being kept around. You'd think, if they wanted power teams, they'd want to cut the dead weight. Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 6,910 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 4:38:20 PM  Kevin Finnegan wrote: I think the bigger question for the Big 10 is, why keep Rutgers and Maryland? I hear the Baltimore/NYC markets, but with so many people using streaming to watch events, do markets matter as much anymore? The other schools are having to split their money with Rutgers and Maryland. If I were OSU, I'd be pissed that they're getting as large a check from TV deals (assuming they are). I don't think that losing either of them would affect their bottom lines. WVU seems a far better fit (unsure of academically) for Big 10 than either of those schools. With the money being thrown around, I'm surprised bottom-feeders in conferences are being kept around. You'd think, if they wanted power teams, they'd want to cut the dead weight. I think you just answered a future question if these big boys do indeed decide to break away. The SEC didn't go after Texas and Oklahoma for TV markets. They went after two of the biggest programs in the country with Top 10 fan followings. Total eyeballs and influence. The clock is ticking on the likes of Maryland, Rutgers, Wake Forest, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, etc. Back to Top Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame General User Member Since: 7/30/2010 Post Count: 3,280 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 7:58:16 PM  Kevin Finnegan wrote: I think the bigger question for the Big 10 is, why keep Rutgers and Maryland? I hear the Baltimore/NYC markets, but with so many people using streaming to watch events, do markets matter as much anymore? The other schools are having to split their money with Rutgers and Maryland. If I were OSU, I'd be pissed that they're getting as large a check from TV deals (assuming they are). I don't think that losing either of them would affect their bottom lines. WVU seems a far better fit (unsure of academically) for Big 10 than either of those schools. With the money being thrown around, I'm surprised bottom-feeders in conferences are being kept around. You'd think, if they wanted power teams, they'd want to cut the dead weight. Markets still matter, and streaming platforms are often still subject to black out rules. Further, markets still matter for the reasons they mattered before: because a market consists of a lot of people with eyeballs and money to spend. Streaming will lead to leagues being platform agnostic well before it leads to leagues being market agnostic. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers increased Big Ten Network subscribers by 15%. They're pulling their weight just fine. Back to Top Campus Flow General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Alexandria, VA Post Count: 4,952 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 8:21:34 PM  Those kind of moves like Maryland to the Big Ten or Syracuse to the ACC are more about security I think and academics. Its more when a program can get into an in between conference their recruiting elevates. Virginia Tech to the Big East, TCU to the Mountain West, UCF to the AAC are examples of a move taking the athletic program to the next level. Its only a matter of time before we see that type of separation from a few of the MAC programs with the money now involved. Nobody is going anywhere either because of ESPN so it will be interesting. Most Memorable Bobcat Events Attended 2010 97-83 win over Georgetown in NCAA 1st round 2012 45-13 victory over ULM in the Independence Bowl 2015 34-3 drubbing of Miami @ Peden front of 25,086 Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,320 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/2/2021 9:23:34 PM  Pataskala wrote: The coffers of the SEC, B10 and ACC have been the big beneficiaries. The amount they charge for TV rights has skyrocketed. This is the correct answer. The losers: fans of every school that isn't Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, and the other 5-6 schools perennially in the top 10. Honestly, what is the draw in this sport anymore? It's as bad as it gets in terms of legit competition. It's "playoff" is a complete joke. It's in the top two for most corrupt organizations in the United States alongside the US Congress. It charges STUDENTS exorbitant prices to attend games. Seriously, what about "big time" college football is great anymore? Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 6,910 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/3/2021 9:18:26 AM  Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Kevin Finnegan wrote: I think the bigger question for the Big 10 is, why keep Rutgers and Maryland? I hear the Baltimore/NYC markets, but with so many people using streaming to watch events, do markets matter as much anymore? The other schools are having to split their money with Rutgers and Maryland. If I were OSU, I'd be pissed that they're getting as large a check from TV deals (assuming they are). I don't think that losing either of them would affect their bottom lines. WVU seems a far better fit (unsure of academically) for Big 10 than either of those schools. With the money being thrown around, I'm surprised bottom-feeders in conferences are being kept around. You'd think, if they wanted power teams, they'd want to cut the dead weight. Markets still matter, and streaming platforms are often still subject to black out rules. Further, markets still matter for the reasons they mattered before: because a market consists of a lot of people with eyeballs and money to spend. Streaming will lead to leagues being platform agnostic well before it leads to leagues being market agnostic. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers increased Big Ten Network subscribers by 15%. They're pulling their weight just fine. What a lot of you say is true, but how many cable subscribers has the Big Ten lost with everyone cutting the cord? Streaming has eliminated the need for certain TV markets because you can access it from anywhere. Back to Top mf279801 General User Member Since: 8/6/2010 Location: Newark, DE Post Count: 2,452 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/3/2021 9:31:18 AM  GoCats105 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Kevin Finnegan wrote: I think the bigger question for the Big 10 is, why keep Rutgers and Maryland? I hear the Baltimore/NYC markets, but with so many people using streaming to watch events, do markets matter as much anymore? The other schools are having to split their money with Rutgers and Maryland. If I were OSU, I'd be pissed that they're getting as large a check from TV deals (assuming they are). I don't think that losing either of them would affect their bottom lines. WVU seems a far better fit (unsure of academically) for Big 10 than either of those schools. With the money being thrown around, I'm surprised bottom-feeders in conferences are being kept around. You'd think, if they wanted power teams, they'd want to cut the dead weight. Markets still matter, and streaming platforms are often still subject to black out rules. Further, markets still matter for the reasons they mattered before: because a market consists of a lot of people with eyeballs and money to spend. Streaming will lead to leagues being platform agnostic well before it leads to leagues being market agnostic. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers increased Big Ten Network subscribers by 15%. They're pulling their weight just fine. What a lot of you say is true, but how many cable subscribers has the Big Ten lost with everyone cutting the cord? Streaming has eliminated the need for certain TV markets because you can access it from anywhere. The other thing that having Rutgers and Maryland does for the Big-can’t_count, not nearly as significant as the captive markets that it got carriage fees for back in the heyday of cable television, was give the considerable number of fans of pre-existing Big10 fans in those regions games to attend. That said, Pew reported earlier this year that 56% of Americans still say they watch TV via cable or satellite, so it’s not that market size no longer matters (especially for the big schools…i personally do not think that market size matters a whit for a school like FIU or SMU) Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,320 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/3/2021 10:45:43 AM  GoCats105 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Kevin Finnegan wrote: I think the bigger question for the Big 10 is, why keep Rutgers and Maryland? I hear the Baltimore/NYC markets, but with so many people using streaming to watch events, do markets matter as much anymore? The other schools are having to split their money with Rutgers and Maryland. If I were OSU, I'd be pissed that they're getting as large a check from TV deals (assuming they are). I don't think that losing either of them would affect their bottom lines. WVU seems a far better fit (unsure of academically) for Big 10 than either of those schools. With the money being thrown around, I'm surprised bottom-feeders in conferences are being kept around. You'd think, if they wanted power teams, they'd want to cut the dead weight. Markets still matter, and streaming platforms are often still subject to black out rules. Further, markets still matter for the reasons they mattered before: because a market consists of a lot of people with eyeballs and money to spend. Streaming will lead to leagues being platform agnostic well before it leads to leagues being market agnostic. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers increased Big Ten Network subscribers by 15%. They're pulling their weight just fine. What a lot of you say is true, but how many cable subscribers has the Big Ten lost with everyone cutting the cord? Streaming has eliminated the need for certain TV markets because you can access it from anywhere. Can you really access it from anywhere? I get blacked out on all kinds of crap still by the NFL, MLS, and MLB. I know that's another story in a way, but I guess I'm really asking how much better "access" to sports really is now versus 5 years ago before YTTV, Hulu Live, Sling, etc became more mainstream in terms of usage. Back to Top OUVan General User Member Since: 12/20/2004 Location: Bethesda, MD Post Count: 5,580 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/3/2021 10:51:21 AM  OhioCatFan wrote: greencat wrote: Maryland was one of the first schools people thought of when they heard "ACC" so I was really stunned when they bolted. Worst mistake for them since not elevating James Franklin from associate head coach to permanent head coach that time. They wrote him a million dollar check and sent him on his way.... to Vandy where he promptly went to 3 straight bowls (first time in school history) and had back to back 9 win seasons (first time in school history). OOPS! I've sometimes wondered if RU and Maryland might try to join another conference and leave the B1G. That would, of course, require admitting they'd made a mistake, so probably not likely. And, maybe the money is so lucrative that they can't afford to leave. Maryland, and their fanbase are very happy with the move. For one thing it got them out of dire financial straits. Secondly, they were the red-headed stepchild in the ACC. And the ACC is no longer the ACC. They were no longer getting Duke and UNC twice a year in basketball. They would be playing ex-Big East teams just as much if not more than they would original ACC teams. Their basketball is still very competitive and could be elite if Mark Turgeon would find someone competent to run his offense. Tremendous recruiter, horrible game coach. Football is a little bit of a train wreck but it was before they made the move too. I can tell you one thing though, around here Ohio State, Michigan, Michigan State and Penn State are bigger draws in football than anything the ACC has to offer, even Clemson. Lastly, Maryland is not a "Southern" school. Walk through the campus and you'll think that you've landed somewhere in New Jersey or New York. The B10 isn't a perfect fit but most Maryland fans I know are happy with it after the initial shock. Back to Top OU_Country General User Member Since: 12/6/2005 Location: On the road between Athens and Madison County Post Count: 8,320 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/3/2021 10:54:04 AM  ^^^^ Nice insight and perspective Van. As a B1G hoops fan, I love watching Maryland more often. (note, I'm not a fan of any one team, but the league is fun to watch) Back to Top GoCats105 General User Member Since: 1/31/2006 Location: Seattle, WA Post Count: 6,910 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/3/2021 11:01:25 AM  OU_Country wrote: GoCats105 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Kevin Finnegan wrote: I think the bigger question for the Big 10 is, why keep Rutgers and Maryland? I hear the Baltimore/NYC markets, but with so many people using streaming to watch events, do markets matter as much anymore? The other schools are having to split their money with Rutgers and Maryland. If I were OSU, I'd be pissed that they're getting as large a check from TV deals (assuming they are). I don't think that losing either of them would affect their bottom lines. WVU seems a far better fit (unsure of academically) for Big 10 than either of those schools. With the money being thrown around, I'm surprised bottom-feeders in conferences are being kept around. You'd think, if they wanted power teams, they'd want to cut the dead weight. Markets still matter, and streaming platforms are often still subject to black out rules. Further, markets still matter for the reasons they mattered before: because a market consists of a lot of people with eyeballs and money to spend. Streaming will lead to leagues being platform agnostic well before it leads to leagues being market agnostic. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers increased Big Ten Network subscribers by 15%. They're pulling their weight just fine. What a lot of you say is true, but how many cable subscribers has the Big Ten lost with everyone cutting the cord? Streaming has eliminated the need for certain TV markets because you can access it from anywhere. Can you really access it from anywhere? I get blacked out on all kinds of crap still by the NFL, MLS, and MLB. I know that's another story in a way, but I guess I'm really asking how much better "access" to sports really is now versus 5 years ago before YTTV, Hulu Live, Sling, etc became more mainstream in terms of usage. I have Sling TV in Texas and I get Big Ten Network, FS1/FS2, SEC Network, Pac 12 Network, NBC Sports, NBA TV, NFL Network and the Longhorn Network. I haven't seen any blackouts from what I can recall. When the Big Ten Network was first launched, I think you could only get it if you were in that particular viewing area on cable. Back to Top Pataskala General User Member Since: 7/8/2010 Location: At least six feet away from anybody else Post Count: 9,152 Status: Offline     RE: Who has conference realignment worked for?    Posted: 11/3/2021 11:14:29 AM  GoCats105 wrote: OU_Country wrote: GoCats105 wrote: Bobcat Love's Sense of Shame wrote: Kevin Finnegan wrote: I think the bigger question for the Big 10 is, why keep Rutgers and Maryland? I hear the Baltimore/NYC markets, but with so many people using streaming to watch events, do markets matter as much anymore? The other schools are having to split their money with Rutgers and Maryland. If I were OSU, I'd be pissed that they're getting as large a check from TV deals (assuming they are). I don't think that losing either of them would affect their bottom lines. WVU seems a far better fit (unsure of academically) for Big 10 than either of those schools. With the money being thrown around, I'm surprised bottom-feeders in conferences are being kept around. You'd think, if they wanted power teams, they'd want to cut the dead weight. Markets still matter, and streaming platforms are often still subject to black out rules. Further, markets still matter for the reasons they mattered before: because a market consists of a lot of people with eyeballs and money to spend. Streaming will lead to leagues being platform agnostic well before it leads to leagues being market agnostic. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers increased Big Ten Network subscribers by 15%. They're pulling their weight just fine. What a lot of you say is true, but how many cable subscribers has the Big Ten lost with everyone cutting the cord? Streaming has eliminated the need for certain TV markets because you can access it from anywhere. Can you really access it from anywhere? I get blacked out on all kinds of crap still by the NFL, MLS, and MLB. I know that's another story in a way, but I guess I'm really asking how much better "access" to sports really is now versus 5 years ago before YTTV, Hulu Live, Sling, etc became more mainstream in terms of usage. I have Sling TV in Texas and I get Big Ten Network, FS1/FS2, SEC Network, Pac 12 Network, NBC Sports, NBA TV, NFL Network and the Longhorn Network. I haven't seen any blackouts from what I can recall. When the Big Ten Network was first launched, I think you could only get it if you were in that particular viewing area on cable. Blackouts are negotiated between the leagues and the video provider so they vary from sport-to-sport and provider-to-provider. It used to be that stuff on ESPN3 was blacked out in some areas because it was being carried on local cable channels or satellite sports packages but I haven't seen that in several years. Maybe it's because ESPN worked a deal with satellite providers to allow streaming to their subscribers, even without sports packages. We will get by. We will get by. We will get by. We will survive. Back to Top Showing Replies:   1 - 19  of 19 Posts Jump to Page:   1 View Other 'Ohio Football' Topics                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               WHO'S ONLINE There are 219 Active Visitors on BobcatAttack.com 219 Guests 0 Registered Users There are no other users looking at this page.

Copyright ©2024 BobcatAttack.com. All rights reserved.  |  Privacy Policy  |  Terms of Use
Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties