Fighter of the Nightman
- Chicago, IL
I'm no expert on this, but the guiding factor in all of this for both the Big Ten and SEC has seemed to really be this simple up until this point:
** Does School ABC add enough revenue to increase the slice of the pie current members get, even with more mouths to feed? **
For example, if there is $270 to go around in the current Big Ten, each current school would theoretically be getting $15 back. A 19th school would have to bring at least $16 to the table in its own right to justify adding it ... otherwise it just reduces the payout for current members, and it's not worth it. And there seem to be very few schools that (at least by themselves) fit the bill, especially now.
What I am kind of interested about, though, is at what point down our "Big Two" timeline is it worth it to be a lot less picky than that? Maybe we wouldn't have taken UNC in 2015, but is it worth it just to nab them up now before another school inks a contract with them? I am not privy to the TRUE economics behind this, and I frankly don't trust anyone who claims to be unless he/she sits in the board rooms making these decisions. While we fans like to simplify this down to "football revenue" all too often (at least IMO), I think the powers-that-be indeed consider other factors like long-term potential. Obviously there are some schools that have built up such a brand that they just have this inherent long-term value, but a school like Clemson would have NEVER been a target even circa 2000 (they're the less popular team in a mid-sized state, and they had no elite success to speak of ... they're a hot target because they've been good, but are the "bones" there to make them this amazing asset in the long run? Maybe. Maybe UNC is worse than Oklahoma State at football over the last ten years, but with Nick Saban at either school, does UNC bring way more long-term value to the Big Ten? I say yes, absolutely. A lot of factors would go into that calculation, IMO.
On a slight aside, as I have studied TV viewership numbers over the last couple years, I have become increasingly convinced that there are really only like 5-10 schools that by themselves bring a ton of value for TV eyeballs. After those true big dogs (Michigan, OSU, Texas, Notre Dame, etc.), I think the inherent gap between schools is much, much smaller than we believe, and it simply depends on (A) how good they are, (B) how good their opponent is and (C) most importantly what channel/time slot they have. Within that massive group you might have some variation based on factors like instate population and alumni base (i.e., there are just simply WAY more human beings with some sort of sentimental attachment leading them to potentially watch an Illini football fan than there are those for a small private school that shares its state with more popular teams like Wake Forest), but I think it's more often the case that good schools draw well, bad schools don't as much and any school can be good/bad in a given decade. The degree to which Wisconsin football outdraws Illini football in similar channel/time slots is very negligible given how much better they have been than us for decades. Part of that is because Illinois has good "base" qualities keeping our floor high (huge alumni base and a huge state population with relatively little competition for fans instate), but I also think it's because a huge chunk of fans tuning into a given game aren't actually fans of either team...
