That is so untrue! I know you’ve read my posts saying the same thing. The bigger question is: am I that self-promoting blowhard. Who is wrong more times than right? Or is that guy reading and just copying my posts?
The NCAA is not involved in the CFP. They got cut out of the deal a long time ago.
My mistake for assuming Wole was correct about the ncaa.
Everything you said is more likely to be true than not except A&M which the only two people I have ever heard that from is you and swaim. When you said it was rumored I googled it and the only “source” that appears to be popping up is swaims “source” in Chicago. Yes I would put you, swaim, and dan Dakich are all self-promoting blowhards.
There is buzz now that the big 12 will pick up the better teams of the acc. I do project the big ten will take Miami or florida state, likely the latter if they achieve AAU status, but it may be a couple of years. But I think B12 ends up with whatever florida team does not join the big ten, clemson, and other solid acc teams. I don’t see the benefit of ND in the big ten, and just as much rather see it go to B12. I’m not saying the acc will be on par with the Sec or B10, but it wouldn’t consider it folded.
But are they going to pay up more than they would if they picked up a new market?
Yes, Colorado is AAU:
nittanylionswire.usatoday.com
So here is my question. As I peruse the multitude of streaming services to find the cheapest that will deliver all of the college football games (and they are following cables failed model, add more and more "crap" that you don't want but end up paying higher prices for to keep the rest of the loser-fodder afloat) when, WHEN do the divisions that are left wise up and say "Hey, let's just do our OWN college football channel." Charge $10 a month, which is a steal, and they then keep ALL of the doe-ray-me from advertising, membership revenue, and even pay-per-view once a month marquee games (like HBO did with boxing). Since the Rubicon has been past and left in the dust per player compensation, you might as well go all in, full throttle hog waller cut all the greedy middle men (channels, services, streamers, etc.) out.
Like the cubs did? Jim Delaney wanted to force every sports package on cable to have to pay the big ten for it. With streaming I agree that’s a bit unnecessary. But for the new big ten tv package it is way more than the big ten network we will be on three broadcast channels plus we are frequently on peacock forcing all of us to buy into that subscription. It’s a long term deal. My hunch is many people who would watch big ten football and get subscriptions would overlap with note dame fans, and most subway Notre dame fans I know won’t pay for the subscription. I don’t know how much more they will gain. USC and ucla opened up a whole new time slot on west coast. Oregon and Washington aren’t even getting initially the full share. I think it’s going to take a large market to pull from as well as a major team that fox, nbc, and cbs will say hey we’re not going to show the Michigan-Penn state game because we would rather show Notre Dame - northwestern. But if we can get a florida state the major networks know they will draw from a larger geographical area and pick up a lot of southeast subscribers on peacock. A little different than regionalism where subscriptions are forced like Rutgers and Maryland under Jim Delaney where he forced all cable subscribers to get BTN.
Would love to see the B10 go after FSU and Miami. But, seems like the natural fit for both of them is the SEC.
That’s way above my pay grade, but I do think Fox and CBS would love to add ND games to the inventory.
They have to bump other games to add ND though, and I’m not sure how many more midwestern viewers you gain after you cannibalize them. If they could get an amendment to their agreement to add another broadcast game by adding the 3 schools I think that makes sense. For example if we are guaranteed a Friday night Fox prime time game every Friday plus noon, 3:30, 7:00, and some 10:30 games (all ET) on Saturday I think that could work, that’s a lot of coverage. But if it’s the same agreement and the only upside is we get a bump for additional subscribers I don’t know how it can be an increase.
They want as many “must-see” games as they can get. ND in the conference adds probably 4-6 of those a season.
You're speaking of yesteryear. ND's pathetic schedule has resulted in an exodus of viewers. Last year only 4 of ND's games were among the 50 most watched, so eight ND games didn't make the top 50. That titanic USC-ND game only ranked # 25.
So, only 6 programs had more top 50 rated games than ND, even with their pathetic schedule? (Which would be immediately improved in the B1G)
Did you read the article? Colorado games were in the Top 50 six times. ND only four times. Colorado is also ahead of FSU and A&M.
I'm not saying that ND wouldn't be a good addition to the Big Ten. Of course they would. I thought we were discussing the best team to join the conference along with ND. FSU is not AAU. Colorado and A&M are AAU.
Duck the Fomaz….
Let’s see how Colorado’s ratings compare with ND’s this season, before we get our Prime Pom-Poms out…
Again, I'm not arguing a choice of Notre Dame OR Colorado. We're talking about the best 'partner' to come into the Big Ten with ND if that should happen. The three options discussed here are Colorado, FSU or A&M.
The Tallahassee-Thomasville DMA is even worse, it's ranked # 105. And if regional markets don't really matter, why did we bring in Rutgers and Maryland?
Right, ten years ago we brought in Rutgers and Maryland because of their regional TV markets.
Yes, it needs to be explicitly explained. What is the difference between cable subscriptions and streaming subscriptions? You can pay for the BTN in a cable bundle with other networks, or you can pay for the BTN in a streaming bundle with other networks. I have done both and occasionally pony up an additional $6/month for Peacock to watch Purdue.
Thank you for your response but the BTN gets paid the same way now as it did back in the Rutgers/Maryland days. That has not changed. It's still (approximately) $1/subscriber in footprint and ten cents/subscriber out of footprint. It doesn't make any difference whether the carrier is cable or streaming. Thus if the school is in a high market TV area, that is more money for the conference.
This isn’t that hard.
Comments like "This isn't hard." or "Didn't think that needed to be explicitly stated." are meaningless in a discussion. It's just a empty, insulting comment that suggests that you can't provide any solid evidence to support your position. For example, if TAMU is historically much more likely to play in big games than Colorado, please tell us about those big games. Against who? When? Colorado won the national championship in 1990. A&M won one in 1939.
