[NU Sports] Pac 10 to invite 6 Big XII schools to join?

[Peter Warner]

I don't post often.  Given the length of what follows, you're probably happy
that is the case.  If you want to skip the statistical back-up, just go down
to the "So what's this mean" section.

I don't understand what Nebraska or Mizzou would add to The Big Ten,
especially when compared to the alternatives.

US Census Bureau Populations estimates as of 7/09 for The Big Ten
"footprint" states:
			July 1, 2009	July 1, 2030
Illinois		12,910,409		13,432,892
Indiana		 6,423,113		 6,810,108
Iowa			 3,007,856		 2,955,172
Minnesota		 5,266,214		 6,306,130
Michigan		 9,969,727		10,694,172
Ohio			11,542,645		11,550,528
Pennsylvania	12,604,767		12,768,184
Wisconsin		 5,654,774		 6,150,764
Total			67,379,505		70,667,950
Average:		 8,422,438

Nebraska pop: 1,796,619
Nebraska has tradition and history in college football.  It has no future.
Nebraska is basically an agriculture state with stagnant population of about
1.7 million people since 1980.  US Census Bureau's latest stats released in
2005 expect that to remain stagnant through 2030.

Missouri pop: 5,987,580
Missouri has less tradition and history in college football.  It has no
future.  Missouri is cross between an agriculture state and a dying
industrial Midwestern state.  Presumably, bordering on Illinois, much of the
St. Louis market already follows The Big Ten. Missouri has gone from a
population of about 5 million in 1980 to 6 million today.  US Census Bureau
expects that to increase to only 6.5 million by 2030.

New Jersey pop: 8,707,739
Rutgers doesn't have much college football tradition or history.  It could
have a future.  New Jersey is an industrial state with a population that has
gone from about 7.3 million in 1980 to 8.7 million today.  US Census Bureau
expects that to increase to 9.8 million by 2030.

New York pop: 19,541,453
Syracuse doesn't have much college football tradition or history.  It could
have a future.  New York is an industrial/financial state with a population
that has gone from about 17.8 million in 1980 to 19.5 million today.  US
Census Bureau expects that 19.5 million to remain stagnant through 2030.

Texas pop: 24,782,302
Texas, A&M, & Tech have tradition, history and a future in college football.
Texas is an oil/industrial state with a population that has gone from 14
million in 1980 to 24.8 million today.  US Census Bureau expects that to
increase to 33.3 million by 2030.

US Census Bureau (latest available) estimates US population of 307 million
with 129 million housing units.  Namely, the average number of persons per
household is about 2.38.

According to SNL Kagan (leading cable and satellite industry analyst), there
are about 105 million households that subscribe to cable or satellite.
That's a market penetration of about 81.4%.

According to SNL Kagan, The Big Ten Network receives 88 cents per subscriber
per month inside its eight-state footprint and 5 cents outside.

SO WHAT'S THIS MEAN?

Assuming The Big Ten Network will get 83 cents (88-5) more per subscriber if
a state enters the footprint than it gets now, added revenue to The Big Ten
will be the following from each potential new state:

Nebraska:    (1,796,619 / 2.38) x 81.4% x $0.83 x 12 mos. = $  6,120,160 /
year
Missouri:    (5,987,580 / 2.38) x 81.4% x $0.83 x 12 mos. = $ 20,396,616 /
year
New Jersey:  (8,707,739 / 2.38) x 81.4% x $0.83 x 12 mos. = $ 29,662,803 /
year
New York:	(19,541,453 / 2.38) x 81.4% x $0.83 x 12 mos. = $ 66,567,713
/ year
Texas:	(19,541,453 / 2.38) x 81.4% x $0.83 x 12 mos. = $ 84,420,599 / year

Note, this underestimates the financial impact because it is assumed that
all subscribers in the current non-footprint state currently subscribe to
The Big Ten Network.  That is not the case because in most of the current
footprint states, BTN is part of a lower-tier subscription package.  In
other states, it is an add-on that costs more. 

So, financially, NY and NJ would presently be marginally better than Texas
for The Big Ten.  And, Rutgers & Syracuse are members of the AAU.  (To
lock-up the NY-NJ market, I view Rutgers & Syracuse as a package deal.)

Texas would be a close second, particularly given census projections.
Problem: Politically, Texas may not be able to move without A&M and/or Tech.
Academically, The Big Ten presidents might be able to stomach A&M, who is an
AAU member, but probably not Tech, who is not an AAU member.  (Note,
however: ND is not a member of the AAU either, but The Big Ten has
previously offered it membership.)

SO, what's best for Texas?  The Pac-10 will undoubtedly form its own network
with financial arrangements similar to the BTN.

Pac-10 footprint populations:
			July 1, 2009	July 1, 2030
Arizona:		 6,595,778		10,712,397
California:		36,961,664		46,444,861
Oregon:		 3,825,657		 4,833,918
Washington:		 6,664,195		 8,624,801
Total			54,047,294		70,615,977

Namely, given projected populations over the next 20 yrs., there would be a
slight financial disadvantage for Texas to join the Pac-10 over The Big Ten.
That disadvantage would increase if The Big Ten picked-up NJ and NY as well.

Even though I've provided a lot of stats, it doesn't mean I know what I'm
talking about.  These are extrapolations, not interpolations.  And, there's
always the public perceptions and politics.  Worst of all, we're dealing
with college presidents who will be making the decisions rather than
businessmen.

However, if I had any say in it, I'd dump Nebraska, Missouri and the rest of
the Big 12 - except the Texas schools - from the equation.  To do otherwise
is a financial mistake and an admission by The Big Ten that it really isn't
as great as it portends to be.

In short, depending on how many schools The Big Ten adds and if I didn't
have to worry about Texas politics, my additions would be in the following
order:

ND
Texas
Syracuse
Rutgers
Texas A&M
Texas Tech

Peter Warner
T'74, KGSM'76, L'79