Turn Off Ads?
Page 31 of 45 FirstFirst ... 2127282930313233343541 ... LastLast
Results 451 to 465 of 671

Thread: College Football Realignment

  1. #451
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    34,888

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutaman View Post
    I suppose, but ask any bookmaker in the NYC market how much action he takes on Rutgers. Answer- not much, nobody cares. And New Yorkers will gamble on anything. Rutgers is on a level with NASCAR.
    Oh I agree. It is a joke. Rutgers is an absolutely terrible athletic school historically. They have been to 7 bowl games and 6 NCAA tournaments (none since 1991). Cincinnati has not exactly been flush with football bowl games, but has been to nearly twice as many (13) and has been to 26 NCAA tournaments. Can't find a conference that wants them.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #452
    GR8NESS WMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky
    Posts
    16,957

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Few thoughts:

    1) A really small piece of the NY/NJ pie is still a BIG piece of pie.

    2) Better conference affiliation, like the B10, will eventually lead to more interest.

    3) Factor in those living in NY/NJ who are a fan of a B10 team other than Rutgers. That's a lot of fans, I'm guessing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Scrap Irony View Post
    Calipari is not, nor has he ever been accused or "caught", cheating. He himself turned in one of his players (Camby) for dealing with an agent to get one Final Four overturned. The other is all on the NCAA and Rose. (IF Rose cheated.)
    "Cheering for Kentucky is like watching Star Wars and hoping Darth Vader chokes an ewok"


  4. #453
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,336

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutaman View Post
    I suppose, but ask any bookmaker in the NYC market how much action he takes on Rutgers. Answer- not much, nobody cares. And New Yorkers will gamble on anything. Rutgers is on a level with NASCAR.
    That doesn't matter. What matters is getting the Big Ten Network into as many homes as possible so the conference can keep raking in that sweet, sweet cable money. Look at the markets they are going to have their product in. NYC, D.C., Baltimore as well as already having it in Philly and Chicago.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160

  5. #454
    Titanic Struggles Caveat Emperor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The 513
    Posts
    12,622

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    That doesn't matter. What matters is getting the Big Ten Network into as many homes as possible so the conference can keep raking in that sweet, sweet cable money. Look at the markets they are going to have their product in. NYC, D.C., Baltimore as well as already having it in Philly and Chicago.
    This is accurate.

    The issue is the subscriber fees paid by cable providers (per household) for the Big Ten Network. Within the conference footprint, the BTN charges something close to double for cable networks to carry it.

    Lots of folks in DC / MD / VA and the NY/NJ media markets already get the BTN as part of their expanded cable package, and the B10 receives a set price per household. With the expansion of Rutgers and MD, now each of those cable viewers will be worth double to the BTN. Additionally, the BTN pushes cable providers to make the BTN a part of the basic cable package in these markets (and they run spots telling fans to "call your cable operators" and demand the BTN on their basic cable). If THAT happens, it increases the amount of money the BTN receives exponentially.

    It's, among many reasons, why Cincinnati isn't considered any kind of "fit" for the BTN -- Cincinnati / NKY is already considered part of the BTN's footprint. They don't add revenue by adding Cincinnati the same way they would, say, Georgia Tech (Atlanta metro).
    Championships Matter.
    23 Years and Counting...

  6. #455
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,835

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Correct, CE, but I think it's an even bigger difference than that -- last figures I saw, a BTN subscriber in a non-B1G home state gets them somewhere between a nickel and dime per month. In B1G states, it was closer to 90 cents, and their near-universal success in muscling their way onto the nearly-everyone-gets-these-channels tiers means nearly everyone living in those states with a cable/satellite subscription is paying it. Multiply times twelve times millions, and we see where that's going.
    Not all who wander are lost

  7. #456
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,390

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor View Post
    This is accurate.

    The issue is the subscriber fees paid by cable providers (per household) for the Big Ten Network. Within the conference footprint, the BTN charges something close to double for cable networks to carry it.

    Lots of folks in DC / MD / VA and the NY/NJ media markets already get the BTN as part of their expanded cable package, and the B10 receives a set price per household. With the expansion of Rutgers and MD, now each of those cable viewers will be worth double to the BTN. Additionally, the BTN pushes cable providers to make the BTN a part of the basic cable package in these markets (and they run spots telling fans to "call your cable operators" and demand the BTN on their basic cable). If THAT happens, it increases the amount of money the BTN receives exponentially.

    It's, among many reasons, why Cincinnati isn't considered any kind of "fit" for the BTN -- Cincinnati / NKY is already considered part of the BTN's footprint. They don't add revenue by adding Cincinnati the same way they would, say, Georgia Tech (Atlanta metro).
    If Rutgers is so valuable based on potential cable subscribers, why did the ACC ignore Rutgers when it was wooing Pitt and Syracuse? Why did the Big 12 when it went after West Virginia?

  8. #457
    Kmac5 KoryMac5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Waterloo, NY
    Posts
    3,681

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    That doesn't matter. What matters is getting the Big Ten Network into as many homes as possible so the conference can keep raking in that sweet, sweet cable money. Look at the markets they are going to have their product in. NYC, D.C., Baltimore as well as already having it in Philly and Chicago.
    Exactly the Big Ten Network gets 1.99 for each home that carries their programming whether people are watching the games or not. It's all about the network and putting money into the pockets of the universities.
    If you have a losing record at Reds games, please stop going.

  9. #458
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,572

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutaman View Post
    If Rutgers is so valuable based on potential cable subscribers, why did the ACC ignore Rutgers when it was wooing Pitt and Syracuse? Why did the Big 12 when it went after West Virginia?
    Neither has their own network to sell.
    Go Gators!

  10. #459
    C-A-T-S CATS! CATS! CATS! WVRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Almost Heaven
    Posts
    8,445

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutaman View Post
    If Rutgers is so valuable based on potential cable subscribers, why did the ACC ignore Rutgers when it was wooing Pitt and Syracuse? Why did the Big 12 when it went after West Virginia?
    The ACC has been making a move more towards basketball. Syracuse adds the same NY base as Rutgers but provides a better basketball program.

    As for WVU, I view WVU the same way as Nebraska. Tradition rich football program and loyal fans but adds little else. The Big 12 was also in a state of panic after losing Nebraska, Colorado, A&M, and Missouri and had to make a move to keep stability within the conference. TCU made sense given they were already in the state, but given the other options, WVU was the next available option.
    Quote Originally Posted by savafan View Post
    I've read books about sparkling vampires who walk around in the daylight that were written better than a John Fay article.

  11. #460
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,042

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Rumors swirling of the Big East Trio heading to the ACC. Announcement supposedly Monday.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  12. #461
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,155

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutaman View Post
    If Rutgers is so valuable based on potential cable subscribers, why did the ACC ignore Rutgers when it was wooing Pitt and Syracuse? Why did the Big 12 when it went after West Virginia?
    ACC is stupid and run by idiots.

    Big 12 needed a quality athletic university.
    Quote Originally Posted by moewan View Post
    Barmaid to patron "Sir you are slurring, I am going to have to cut you off"

    Patron to barmaid "I'm not slurring, I'm speaking in cursive"


  13. #462
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,155

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmered View Post
    Rumors swirling of the Big East Trio heading to the ACC. Announcement supposedly Monday.
    Trio? Louisville, Cincy, and UConn???
    Quote Originally Posted by moewan View Post
    Barmaid to patron "Sir you are slurring, I am going to have to cut you off"

    Patron to barmaid "I'm not slurring, I'm speaking in cursive"


  14. #463
    On the brink wolfboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    is everything
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyder View Post
    Trio? Louisville, Cincy, and UConn???
    That's the rumor.
    How do we know he's not Mel Torme?

  15. #464
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,155

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by wolfboy View Post
    That's the rumor.
    They can add those teams (and no offense UC fans) and the rest of college football won't care. If that's true I feel sorry for UC and Louisville they're about to become the red headed step children of a fate worse than Providence... Tobacco Road.
    Quote Originally Posted by moewan View Post
    Barmaid to patron "Sir you are slurring, I am going to have to cut you off"

    Patron to barmaid "I'm not slurring, I'm speaking in cursive"


  16. #465
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    628

    Re: College Football Realignment

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyder View Post
    They can add those teams (and no offense UC fans) and the rest of college football won't care. If that's true I feel sorry for UC and Louisville they're about to become the red headed step children of a fate worse than Providence... Tobacco Road.
    When the alternative is Conference USA, the ACC looks pretty darn appealing.

    As a UC fan I'd be elated to see UC join the ACC. Realistically I don't think UC would be able to field a perennially competitive football team in any of the other power conferences, but I do think they'd be able to compete in the ACC.

    And while TV execs don't seem to care, adding Louisville, UC and UConn to the likes of UNC, Duke, Syracuse, Pitt and Notre Dame should make for one heck of a basketball conference.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25