I guess I didn't realize how much of a following Rutgers has?
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Wish The PAC 12 Had Balls
- Thread starter InTheBuff
- Start date
It’s not about Rutgers. It’s about the people who are fans of other B1G schools getting to see the entire network’s programming easily and getting the ad buys from the ratings. That’s why the market makes sense for the conference. I hardly ever watch Maryland, Virginia Tech, or UVA, but I get every game that’s broadcast by ACC and B1G affiliated networks.
Then why does adding Rutgers make a difference? I have the BIGN. People in the tri-state area who are fans of other programs didn't need Rutgers moving to the BIG to watch the network
Because if you are in the footprint the cost providers pay the big 10 is like 5 times higher. It goes from like .35 cents per person to 1.25.
Interesting. I didn't know that and now your earlier comments make more sense to me.
I can only speak for myself but prices are already set for tv providers. Who is paying this higher rate if a School is technically in market?
It’s set in the original contracts. Comcast pays a higher rate for the pac 12 network inside the current states than they do for those who get pac 12 network out of footprint. Same for the big 10 network.
Getting a local team changes the tiering of the network for the TV providers for standard packaging. It also bolsters the conference’s priority in getting games on larger partner broadcasts (network, ESPN, and Fox cable).
Fox Warns The Big Ten Deal With Comcast is Expiring
With the kickoff of college football season about a month away, Fox and Comcast are about to butt heads again, this time about a potential blackout of the Big Ten Network.
www.nexttv.com
“BTN charges cable operators a different sub fee in states where the Big Ten has school. According to research company Kagan, BTN gets more than $1.30 per month from cable operators for in-market subscribers, but less than a dime for out-of-market subscribers.”
RG doesn’t have anywhere near this kind of clout or ability.
BluHorshuLuvsAnacottSteel
Member
Get back on topic. I can’t believe you people now have a thread going about ****ing Rutgers.
What should have happened before the season is that they made a rule that if a team cancels a game due to COVID, they get a loss. Period. You’re taking your chances but at least you know that if the other team cancels the game you get the win. Why should we be penalized if USC cancels the game? That’s what halopened.
What should have happened before the season is that they made a rule that if a team cancels a game due to COVID, they get a loss. Period. You’re taking your chances but at least you know that if the other team cancels the game you get the win. Why should we be penalized if USC cancels the game? That’s what halopened.
CULifer
Well-Known Member
I could go with that too.
Signed, RG
I agree that the outcome of that arrangement is unfair.
But I'd also suggest there is a dangerous incentive imbedded in your proposal.
Moral hazard FTMFW.
As has been pointed out - repeatedly - doing what you propose would encourage teams to hide positive tests. Bad idea.
FlatironsBuff
Well-Known Member
I wonder if USC would have had too many positive and cancelled on us if we hadn’t lost the ASU game the week before? Certainly made it an easy choice to avoid a good team since they had a game in hand
But I would venture to guess that the B1G looks back at that as a bad move especially from a pure football perspective, although @onealcd brought up some great points about network upcharges in markets that are in a conference footprint.
I think the ACC adding BC was a similarly bad move. BC is probably the 5th best draw in the Boston market, at best. Plus I doubt there are that many ACC alums in the Northeast since more people tend to move South or West later in life.
Seems like tOSU fans are all over the place. There are tons of them in the Charlotte region too. I'd say the only other out of state schools that have more fans in this area are South Carolina, Clemson and VT and that's obviously a regional thing. Although technically the Charlotte market extends into the upstate of SC.
Last edited:
I think the big 10 is still very excited about adding Maryland and Rutgers. It has made them more money than any other conference so far and they didn’t create a football league that was “too competitive” like the sec where teams are afraid to play more games against one another. In basketball there has been a clear increase in play there since the money started flowing in too.
I do think where they probably could have done better was adding Missouri, Virginia, or even North Carolina instead of Nebraska. All of those schools give them more tvs in the footprint, better recruiting areas and way better schools.
I disagree with you about Boston not having a lot of ACC grads, that city is a big financial hub (I would think number two to NYC) and that always attracts kids from those schools. I do agree that Boston college isn’t a big draw but that’s just college football in the northeast unfortunately.
2 more games, which is obviously not happening
They all considered it. That would potentially cause teams to hide cases. Thus all rejected it.
I would be surprised if the B1G is excited to have Maryland and Rutgers outside of financial reasons. The financial add a team brings us always tough because adding a school also means one more to divvy up the pie with. But I'm sure they did all that research before adding them.
I remember there was some serious talk about the B1G adding UVA and UNC but that was also at the same time the ACC was considered unstable and there was talk of Clemson and FSU leaving for the Big 12.
Guess I can't really speak for Boston but I do feel confident that it is very apathetic when it comes to college sports, except maybe hockey lol. It might be a big financial hub but I thought Charlotte was the 2nd largest financial hub, maybe that's just with respect to banking though.
If washington can't play in the CCG next week then that would open up the door for a USC-CU matchup, assuming they both win of course.
Purdue is paying their head coach almost 5 million a year, I can guarantee you they are very happy getting that money from their tv contracts in the northeast. The big 10 consistently pulls amazing ratings so they obviously aren’t having an issue with who they added or splitting the pie to those teams.
as for Charlotte, yes that in banking. It is actually pretty small in terms of financial industry. The top financial cities in the us are nyc, Chicago, San Francisco and Boston.
SilvrGldBuff
Well-Known Member
Wilner tweeted that there is a lot of chatter about pushing the championship game back a week. However, he's latest tweet says decision to be made this weekend...
I like Bear Down Steve's proposal on his reply
I like Bear Down Steve's proposal on his reply
Not sure if it was true, but there was some chatter that USC could have played us but Helton didn’t want To go with three backup OL.
Yea, since Fox started their Big Noon games last year the ratings for those have been great. But it's also with pointing out that tOSU or Michigan is usually playing in that game.