As a native Michiganian who attended Northwestern, I'm Big Ten through-and-through. Despite this blog focusing almost exclusively on pro sports, I do find college football to be the most exhilarating live event in the country. College basketball is not far behind. Yet, the gap between professional and amateur is shrinking.
It wasn't long ago that Chris Webber gazed into the stands at the University of Michigan and saw thousands of kids wearing "Webber" jerseys. He wanted a piece, and, at the time, he was vilified for it. People didn't want to tarnish the sanctity of the amateur athlete. Why should the athletes make money when the school can use their image and keep everything? Why should the NCAA hoops tournament stick to the 64 team format when they can expand it to 96 teams and make 50% more money? Why should the Big Ten remain at 11 schools when they can place the Big Ten Network in Missouri, Nebraska, and New York just by inviting those schools into the league?
We live in an age when college sports (at least the big two) can no longer hide under the "amateur" blanket. It's a big money enterprise. The transition from amateur to professional was a slow burn until the debut of the Big Ten Network. Despite its cable-access-level production value, the Big Ten Network earned $22million for each school. That's more than double what the SEC schools made for their TV contract. Why would the Big Ten want to share the wealth? Because more TV markets means more basic cable subscribers. And if the school just happens to be a ratings winner (Nebraska), then that means more advertising dollars to boot.
The league is about to flex its muscles and prove it's still the big boy on the block, despite a subpar product on the football field that simply can't compete with the SEC, Pac-10, and Big 12. As a Big Ten fan, that makes me a bit embarrassed. Our league is paving the way for a more commercialized product (if that's possible).
While I would love to see a powerhouse like Nebraska enter the fold, a small part of me will die. It's the part that remembers waltzing into the stadium for $5... celebrating with the players after the game... recruiting the starting left tackle to be the pitcher for our softball team. It's quite sad to me, but that's the reality of modern sports. If you value the sanctity of the amateur athlete, go to the Ivy League, where tradition, for better or worse, remains king.
One bright spot of expansion is that it will pave the way for a playoff. While I do value the traditions of college sports, the bowl system is not one of them. There are simply too many of them. They are a dime-a-dozen. The BCS and rankings are completely arbitrary, so I welcome a playoff, in almost any format. When the Big Ten expands to 16, the ACC will likely expand too, pillaging the rest of the Big East. The Pac-10 will move in on Texas, Colorado, Texas A&M and any other Big-12 school of value. Then there will only be four major conferences - ACC, Big 10, SEC, Pac-10. The winner of each conference moves on to a 4-team playoff.
Schools that are not in the major conferences basically get screwed. The rich get richer, I suppose. Love it or hate it, that's the direction we're going.
First of all, check out this site for some incredibly informative and entertaining discussion on Big Ten expansion: http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/
ReplyDeleteSecondly, when you talk about money, the key here is that school budgets are tightening. State budgets are decreasing, which trickles down to the University, and that trickles down to what they can afford to spend on their non-revenue sports. The NCAA men's tournament expansion is not to MAKE more money; it's about KEEPING the money that you have been making. Had the NCAA not done something about their tournament, it was pretty well accepted that their next contract would be for less money. This is turn would have meant substantial cuts to existing non-revenue varsity sports. (An argument for or against the virtues of varsity men's gymnastics and cross country or women's rowing and volleyball is a different topic). But nonetheless, The Powers That Be do not want to face these cuts, so they are looking at improving their revenues.
As far as The Big Ten flexing it's muscles, here are some things to think about that will benefit you, the Big Ten sports fan:
1. The revenue gap between Big Ten schools and every other non-SEC school will grow substantially.
2. If your school (Northwestern) decides to reinvest this revenue into all of its athletic programs, you will have nicer facilities and spend more money on coaches.
3. Your school will be more likely to improve its athletic reputation and performance in many sports, and perhaps add additional sports programs (Northwestern Hockey!)
4. More attractive regular season matchups.
4a. If there is a playoff, then teams are less afraid of scheduling tougher non-conference games.
4b. If the Big Ten adds Texas, Nebraska, and Notre Dame, any matchup between those three schools and UM, OSU, and PSU automatically becomes Must See TV. Even if both squads are 4-2.
4c. Wisconsin, Iowa, and MSU, when they have Top squads, offer intriguing matchups as well. And Purdue, Missouri, and Northwestern are no slouches either. There will be a pretty awesome Big Ten game of the week every week, and the 2nd and 3rd and 4th best game of the week will still be pretty interesting, too.
Finally, from a regional growth standpoint, this is also a good thing. More money coming into the State of Michigan. More money coming into Ann Arbor, and Evanston, and Madison.
Beyond athletics, more Research money coming into the CIC, as they have more resources to tackle more projects. More state senators funneling research into the CIC. Which, again, adds jobs and tax dollars into East Lansing and Bloomington and West Lafayette.
Back to athletics, when people talk about the reputation of the conference, it's always the top of the conference they look at. Nobody really cares about the average RPI; it's about how many top 25 teams, or how many make the tournament, or how many make a bowl.
The Big East basketball has the reputation for being the best, because they have so many teams. Some are pretty good, but they are over-rated nationally, because of quantity. Same with the SEC (which, yes, it's very good), but they get over-rated a bit too because the focus is on the top 4-6 teams, and ignores the bottom feeders.
If Texas, ND, and Nebraska do come along, that is what everyone will focus on nationally for the reputation. And at worst, the Big Ten will be in second place (but far, far ahead of third place) in the dick-swinging contest.
Very astute points, Cliff's Notes.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard the NCAA Tourney TV deal would be for less money. That's a surprise. I won't shed a tear for the NCAA potentially losing money, and I certainly won't miss their CBS broadcast. Any other network would utilize their multi-channel setup to broadcast two or more games at once.
Wouldn't it make sense to drive up viewership if you have the channels at your disposal? Not everyone wants to watch Duke vs Butler. Some folks want to watch NC State vs Gonzaga. I never understood why CBS didn't take advantage of a golden opportunity to have four games on four different channels. With every person in the US filling out a bracket, every game has significance. Especially in the first round.
But I digress.