The "New" Pac-10?

[horseofcourse]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I'm not trying to be an ass but do you understand what is happening here? The Denver market would be getting the pac-10 games now. The people there would be exposed to the Pac-10. They currently arent. Denver is like the 17th largest TV market in the country that would now be Pac-10 territory. It is by far the largest TV market in the Mountain time zone. The expansion gives the pac 10 the LA market(2), SF market(6), Dallas/Ft Worth(7), Houston (10), Seattle(13), Phoenix(14), Denver(17), Sacramento (19) and Portland (23)markets. That is 9 out of the top 23 TV markets in the country. Don't you think that is a whole lot more important clout-wise than kansas basketball? You don't think that every Sat night in the fall we are going to get ABC or Fox double headers featuring pac 10 teams? You don't think that the new pac-10 football championship isn't going to be a major deal?

The really troubling thing is that these same college presidents that are selling out thier conference partners for a bigger piece of the pie will howl with indignity if a player gets a pair of shoes or if someone buys their parents a plane ticket to see them play. "It's all about the student-athlete" they will cry and some idiots will actuall believe them. KY's president willing signed up calipari knowing full well that the shadester will virtually only "recruit" one and done guys who will most likely not bother to attend class but for one semester. USC's president ignored Carroll's players being better paid than some NFL teams and now they are going to the sidelines while Carroll gets paid to screw up the Seahawks.

[miraja2]

Odd time to be a Mizzou alum/fan. We certainly aren't one of the big boys of the Big 12 (Texas), but we aren't exactly the worthless pieces of crap that no conference in their right mind would want (I'm looking at you Iowa St and Kansas St).

Could still end up in the Big 10. Could end up in some modified version of the Big 12. Could end up in some backwater conference (MWC? MAC?) with a few other Big 12 North rejects. It is odd that the future of Mizzou sports could depend on the actions of organizations like the Texas State legislature and/or the Notre Dame booster club.

[slotdirt]

Like I said in the first place, I just can't imagine the powers that be in Texas are going to let UT/A&M/Tech walk without bringing Baylor with them.

Cannon, so what if the Pac-10 is in television sets in Denver? Are you suggesting they're not typically on there already provided there isn't a conflict with Colorado? And the point was that nobody in Denver cares about college football, just like nobody in vast swaths of the greatest Northeast cares about college football. I laugh at the folks who think the Big Ten are going to take Rutgers because they get the "New York" market - what do you think the ratings are for Rutgers football games in New York? They're not very high, I can tell you that much.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Like I said in the first place, I just can't imagine the powers that be in Texas are going to let UT/A&M/Tech walk without bringing Baylor with them.

Cannon, so what if the Pac-10 is in television sets in Denver? Are you suggesting they're not typically on there already provided there isn't a conflict with Colorado? And the point was that nobody in Denver cares about college football, just like nobody in vast swaths of the greatest Northeast cares about college football. I laugh at the folks who think the Big Ten are going to take Rutgers because they get the "New York" market - what do you think the ratings are for Rutgers football games in New York? They're not very high, I can tell you that much.

rutgers 1, usc 0 in the first round of the nfl draft this year.

just sayin...

[slotdirt]

Yeah, well Michigan didn't have a single player drafted in the first round of the 2009 draft while Baylor, Wake Forest, Northern Illinois, and Connecticut did. I'm not sure that puts that foursome ahead of Michigan in the college football heirarchy.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Yeah, well Michigan didn't have a single player drafted in the first round of the 2009 draft while Baylor, Wake Forest, Northern Illinois, and Connecticut did. I'm not sure that puts that foursome ahead of Michigan in the college football heirarchy.

i was just kicking sc while they're rolled up in a ball on the ground anyway.

it felt good.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

i was just kicking sc while they're rolled up in a ball on the ground anyway.

it felt good.

at least we dont have to hear from Booth Operator about the Trojans potentially being National Champs in 2010 and 2011!!

[ddthetide]

i heard today that TAM has been in contact with the SEC office. SEC is their preference.

since no one seems to want KU & KSU maybe the best place for them is CUSA. they'd be competitive in football and own the conference in b-ball.

[ddthetide]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Like I said in the first place, I just can't imagine the powers that be in Texas are going to let UT/A&M/Tech walk without bringing Baylor with them.

Cannon, so what if the Pac-10 is in television sets in Denver? Are you suggesting they're not typically on there already provided there isn't a conflict with Colorado? And the point was that nobody in Denver cares about college football, just like nobody in vast swaths of the greatest Northeast cares about college football. I laugh at the folks who think the Big Ten are going to take Rutgers because they get the "New York" market - what do you think the ratings are for Rutgers football games in New York? They're not very high, I can tell you that much.

i think denver leans toward CSU than colorado.

[otisotisotis]

Originally Posted by ddthetide

i heard today that TAM has been in contact with the SEC office. SEC is their preference.

since no one seems to want KU & KSU maybe the best place for them is CUSA. they'd be competitive in football and own the conference in b-ball.

dd- i would take them and Missouri, round it off with 2 of these - Ga Tech, Va Tech, FSU, or the U.

but who knows what the SEC has in mind.....although I thought I read that if they were to expand, they could renegotiate the ESPN deal....

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

at least we dont have to hear from Booth Operator about the Trojans potentially being National Champs in 2010 and 2011!!

Or 2005

[slotdirt]

I would presume someone in Sooner Nation is printing out 2005 MNC shirts already.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I would presume someone in Sooner Nation is printing out 2005 MNC shirts already.

lol, they are still not the NC's. there will be no BSC NC for that year.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Like I said in the first place, I just can't imagine the powers that be in Texas are going to let UT/A&M/Tech walk without bringing Baylor with them.

Cannon, so what if the Pac-10 is in television sets in Denver? Are you suggesting they're not typically on there already provided there isn't a conflict with Colorado? And the point was that nobody in Denver cares about college football, just like nobody in vast swaths of the greatest Northeast cares about college football. I laugh at the folks who think the Big Ten are going to take Rutgers because they get the "New York" market - what do you think the ratings are for Rutgers football games in New York? They're not very high, I can tell you that much.

You arent getting it. The Big 10 wants the NY market to show thier premier teams Michigan and Ohio State and Penn State, etc. Getting into the market will allow them to get their network into that market. NJ cable companies that may not be carrying the Big 10 channel will now do so. Rutgers is a means to an end.

Now with Colorado in the Pac 10 Denver is pac 10 territory. That means that market will be getting a steady does of pac 10 games, not just CU games. Why you don't think this is important to TV networks and sponsors is beyond me.

[slotdirt]

Honestly, if you've ever been in New York, you'd realize that the Big 10 is on the local ABC affiliate virtually every single weekend already, and that goes double in Philadelphia. What you're failing to understand is that nobody gives two craps about college sports in the Northeast aside from Penn State, and the Big 10 already has saturation in the NY/Philly market through the Nittany Lions.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Honestly, if you've ever been in New York, you'd realize that the Big 10 is on the local ABC affiliate virtually every single weekend already, and that goes double in Philadelphia. What you're failing to understand is that nobody gives two craps about college sports in the Northeast aside from Penn State, and the Big 10 already has saturation in the NY/Philly market through the Nittany Lions.

You are failing to understand that they own their own network and want to get into the biggest tv market in the country. Why is that eluding you? If you owned a TV channel that featured Big 10 sports and made money getting on cable networks and from sponsors don't you think that getting a foothold in the NY market is important? Who else is there in that market? If they have Rutgers and Penn State they have the two biggest programs in the region.

[slotdirt]

Isn't the Big 10 network already available in NJ/NY/PA? I know it is where I live, and I'm in ACC country.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Isn't the Big 10 network already available in NJ/NY/PA? I know it is where I live, and I'm in ACC country.

I'm sure it is in PA but have no idea about NY/NJ. I have it on a sports package in Louisville but My dad doesnt have it available in Saratoga and we didnt have it in FL this Winter.

[Crown@club]

You mean no one gives a crap about Boston College?

Another reason the Big Ten wants Rutgers is the high ARP.

[slotdirt]

Originally Posted by Crown@club

You mean no one gives a crap about Boston College?

Another reason the Big Ten wants Rutgers is the high ARP.

Absolutely nobody gives a crap about Boston College. That is correct.