I raised this possibility on another thread but did some further digging. I am sick with COVID for the past week, so I had some time. If anyone places 0 value on their time, they can read my super long essay about it here:
College Football: Musical Chairs and Pie Eating Contests
In sum, Nebraska has nothing to worry about. Neither do any Big Ten teams. The Big Ten is not kicking anyone out. Even football teams we don‘t really respect, like Minnesota and Purdue or Indiana draw big ratings comparable to any team left to add outside of Norte Dame. And they have sizable markets that get overlooked sometimes, like Indianapolis and MSP. Illinois might be considered on the bubble as it has lackluster ratings numbers and no big home market of its own. But it is a massively huge school, an academic powerhouse, and a founding member of the conference. Zero chance they get booted. Northwestern has poor ratings but is the only Big Ten team actually in Chicago and is super wealthy and academically elite as all get out and a longtime member of the conference. No way they get shown the door. That leaves Maryland and Rutgers. By ratings, they SHOULD get kicked out of the Big Ten. Rutgers especially. They have poor ratings. But they were just added 8 years ago to get the huge DC and NYC markets. No way the Big Ten would change its mind, especially because both of those schools owe the Big Ten boatloads of money from loans they got at the outset to bolster their flailing athletic programs.
As far as Nebraska, yes, we are a small school compared to the rest of the conference and don‘t have any big markets (Lincoln and Omaha combined might be #45 or so and there are more people in dozens of COUNTIES in the Big Ten with more people than the state of Nebraska). But, at least for the foreseeable future, we are the #12-ish school in the country in terms of ratings. We have double the viewers on average than does Purdue and 600K more than Iowa, the next school below us. In terms of ratings, which sell ads, and streaming eyeballs, which get people to pay for the Big Ten Network app, there is simply no reason to replace us, as any school that would be better than us financially from the Big Ten‘s perspective would also grow the pie on its own, so there is no reason for us or anyone else to get kicked out. In other words, any team that would only be worth it for the B1G to add by kicking a team out isn‘t worth adding at all.
Now, the SEC on the other hand… Mississippi State and South Carolina should be worried. Vanderbilt’s ratings are abysmal and they are in a market, Nashville, that the SEC already has with Tennessee. But there is no chance the SEC would kick out the only school that gives it any academic credibility and Vandy is also wealthy as hell. That said, its ratings are comically low. 37,000 people per game on average, which is hard to do when you play Alabama every year. That is #106 in the country. It is ridiculous how few people care about Vandy football. They would be gone in a second if they weren’t the Harvard of the South.
But South Carolina has nothing. Poor ratings. No market. No football success at all. They only joined the SEC in 1991. They were independent before that and in the ACC until they left in 1971 because they didn’t want a minimum 800 SAT score for football players. Seriously. Academics are average at best. If the SEC has to look at adding schools that might not grow the pie on their own, like Florida State or Miami or Georgia Tech, they could show South Carolina the door and turn a neutral or negative financial addition into a net gain.
Ditto for Mississippi State. Sorry Bulldogs. The only difference is they’ve been in the conference longer and it would be a bad look to kick them out. But there are plenty of otherwise borderline additions that become net positives when you have less cowbell.
Missouri’s ratings are abysmal as well, but they were just added and brought the St. Louis and KC markets into an SEC, that, let’s not forget, doesn’t have a lot of big markets to begin with. Let’s remember, their best teams are in Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Baton Rouge, etc. Atlanta and Nashville are about all they had, so you can see now why they wanted Mizzou and A&M and now want Texas and OU and would want UNC and UVA badly if they decide to go after the ACC.
But overall, the Big Ten has a tremendous advantage over the SEC in expansion long term because they had far more major TV markets to begin with and can easily add more. They can add Atlanta by adding Georgia Tech. The SEC already has Atlanta so Georgia Tech is a net loss for them if they don’t kick someone out to make room. Same for Florida State or Miami.
UVA and UNC are net gains for either the Big Ten or SEC. But if the SEC breaks up the ACC, they have far more to lose than gain versus the Big Ten.
Also, the SEC has no chance at Notre Dame and no real reason to go west now that USC and UCLA are gone. It is truly boxed in. That’s why if things go nuclear in the future, the only way the SEC can keep up with the Big Ten in terms of raw numbers and per-team payouts would be to show South Carolina and/or Mississippi State the door.
College Football: Musical Chairs and Pie Eating Contests
In sum, Nebraska has nothing to worry about. Neither do any Big Ten teams. The Big Ten is not kicking anyone out. Even football teams we don‘t really respect, like Minnesota and Purdue or Indiana draw big ratings comparable to any team left to add outside of Norte Dame. And they have sizable markets that get overlooked sometimes, like Indianapolis and MSP. Illinois might be considered on the bubble as it has lackluster ratings numbers and no big home market of its own. But it is a massively huge school, an academic powerhouse, and a founding member of the conference. Zero chance they get booted. Northwestern has poor ratings but is the only Big Ten team actually in Chicago and is super wealthy and academically elite as all get out and a longtime member of the conference. No way they get shown the door. That leaves Maryland and Rutgers. By ratings, they SHOULD get kicked out of the Big Ten. Rutgers especially. They have poor ratings. But they were just added 8 years ago to get the huge DC and NYC markets. No way the Big Ten would change its mind, especially because both of those schools owe the Big Ten boatloads of money from loans they got at the outset to bolster their flailing athletic programs.
As far as Nebraska, yes, we are a small school compared to the rest of the conference and don‘t have any big markets (Lincoln and Omaha combined might be #45 or so and there are more people in dozens of COUNTIES in the Big Ten with more people than the state of Nebraska). But, at least for the foreseeable future, we are the #12-ish school in the country in terms of ratings. We have double the viewers on average than does Purdue and 600K more than Iowa, the next school below us. In terms of ratings, which sell ads, and streaming eyeballs, which get people to pay for the Big Ten Network app, there is simply no reason to replace us, as any school that would be better than us financially from the Big Ten‘s perspective would also grow the pie on its own, so there is no reason for us or anyone else to get kicked out. In other words, any team that would only be worth it for the B1G to add by kicking a team out isn‘t worth adding at all.
Now, the SEC on the other hand… Mississippi State and South Carolina should be worried. Vanderbilt’s ratings are abysmal and they are in a market, Nashville, that the SEC already has with Tennessee. But there is no chance the SEC would kick out the only school that gives it any academic credibility and Vandy is also wealthy as hell. That said, its ratings are comically low. 37,000 people per game on average, which is hard to do when you play Alabama every year. That is #106 in the country. It is ridiculous how few people care about Vandy football. They would be gone in a second if they weren’t the Harvard of the South.
But South Carolina has nothing. Poor ratings. No market. No football success at all. They only joined the SEC in 1991. They were independent before that and in the ACC until they left in 1971 because they didn’t want a minimum 800 SAT score for football players. Seriously. Academics are average at best. If the SEC has to look at adding schools that might not grow the pie on their own, like Florida State or Miami or Georgia Tech, they could show South Carolina the door and turn a neutral or negative financial addition into a net gain.
Ditto for Mississippi State. Sorry Bulldogs. The only difference is they’ve been in the conference longer and it would be a bad look to kick them out. But there are plenty of otherwise borderline additions that become net positives when you have less cowbell.
Missouri’s ratings are abysmal as well, but they were just added and brought the St. Louis and KC markets into an SEC, that, let’s not forget, doesn’t have a lot of big markets to begin with. Let’s remember, their best teams are in Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Baton Rouge, etc. Atlanta and Nashville are about all they had, so you can see now why they wanted Mizzou and A&M and now want Texas and OU and would want UNC and UVA badly if they decide to go after the ACC.
But overall, the Big Ten has a tremendous advantage over the SEC in expansion long term because they had far more major TV markets to begin with and can easily add more. They can add Atlanta by adding Georgia Tech. The SEC already has Atlanta so Georgia Tech is a net loss for them if they don’t kick someone out to make room. Same for Florida State or Miami.
UVA and UNC are net gains for either the Big Ten or SEC. But if the SEC breaks up the ACC, they have far more to lose than gain versus the Big Ten.
Also, the SEC has no chance at Notre Dame and no real reason to go west now that USC and UCLA are gone. It is truly boxed in. That’s why if things go nuclear in the future, the only way the SEC can keep up with the Big Ten in terms of raw numbers and per-team payouts would be to show South Carolina and/or Mississippi State the door.
Last edited:
