Notre Dame to Big 10?

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

You can't use facts like that on the internet, he guaranteed it.

D'oh! My bad. Sorry.

 

[komey1]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Upsets in the first round or two good - losing power teams in the regionals - BAD.

Anyone have the numbers of this year's Final Four with Butler-Duke? Butler is a mid-major, but they have consistantly been one of the best mid-majors and make the occasional TV game. George Mason was a nobody before the NCAA tournament - and some say should not have even been there. There was no doubt Butler should have been there.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Upsets in the first round or two good - losing power teams in the regionals - BAD.

Anyone have the numbers of this year's Final Four with Butler-Duke? Butler is a mid-major, but they have consistantly been one of the best mid-majors and make the occasional TV game. George Mason was a nobody before the NCAA tournament - and some say should not have even been there. There was no doubt Butler should have been there.

This year's NCAA Final had 23.94 million viewers and not only won the time slot, but was the #1 program of the week. Some 48.1 million watched at some point. The second game on Saturday drew 15.83 million viewers.

Edit:

Oh, and...

CBS Sports’ exclusive coverage of the 2010 NCAA Men’s Basketball National Championship Game on Monday, April 5 (9:15-11:45 PM, ET) earned an average overnight household rating/share of 16.0/25, up 34% compared to last year’s 11.9/19 (North Carolina-Michigan State) in the metered markets.

The 16.0/25 rating/share tied with a 16.0/23 in 2005 (North Carolina-Illinois) as the highest rating in the metered markets for the NCAA National Championship game since a 16.9/25 in 1999 (Connecticut-Duke).

The game rating peaked at a 20.3/35 from 11:30-11:45 PM, ET.

CBS Sports’ average overnight household rating/share for the overall Tournament was a 6.6/14, up 5% compared to last year’s 6.3/13 in the metered markets.

The 6.6/14 overall average rating tied with 2007 as the highest overall average rating for the NCAA Tournament since a 7.3/14 in 2005.

Notice the presence of 2007 and 2005 in those numbers; no mention of a ratings-spike in 2006...

 

[4four4]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Saw on ESPN.com today that ESPN's highest ratings this year will be during the World Cup, not college sports.

ESPN will spend $100 million dollars on the World Cup this year. They fully expect to get ratings in return for their investment. Who knew soccer would be so important to ESPN.

 

[sbkbghockey]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

I disagree with that. Everybody loves an underdog. I guarantee you that ratings are much higher in the years with more upsets than the years with a lack of them. In years where only the big time schools win than mostly alumni and hardcore college bball fans which watch the games. If you have underdog stories they will draw in a lot more of the casual fans. I mean when George Mason had that amazing run a few years back it definitely helped to boost ratings.

I disagree! Michigan fans dont after a certain football game against Appalachian State a few seasons ago!

 

[komey1]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

ESPN will spend $100 million dollars on the World Cup this year. They fully expect to get ratings in return for their investment. Who knew soccer would be so important to ESPN.

A US squad that has a legit chance of making it to the second round helps. They also broadcast some European soccer, and you know how passionate those fans get.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Members of Congress get all nosy when Utah is left out of a frigging BCS title game. You think a bunch of universities, that despite their elitism, still rely on federal grants for research and federal support of the student loan system, are going to do something so outrageous as separate completely from the NCAA, slash as many non-revenue sports as possible to stay within the letter of Title IX while murdering the intent, irritate every alum of a university not in that 64 that holds political office, and go strolling off without any kind of response from Washington? Really?

The Ivy's and non-football elite schools in this country would clean up on federal money for about two years before the rest came crawling back.

Get ticked that Washington would bother with this while the country's got eleven thousand other problems, but this would be free political points.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Members of Congress get all nosy when Utah is left out of a frigging BCS title game. You think a bunch of universities, that despite their elitism, still rely on federal grants for research and federal support of the student loan system, are going to do something so outrageous as separate completely from the NCAA, slash as many non-revenue sports as possible to stay within the letter of Title IX while murdering the intent, irritate every alum of a university not in that 64 that holds political office, and go strolling off without any kind of response from Washington? Really?

The Ivy's and non-football elite schools in this country would clean up on federal money for about two years before the rest came crawling back.

Get ticked that Washington would bother with this while the country's got eleven thousand other problems, but this would be free political points.

Congress got involved because one senator from Utah got ticked off. And the end result was...what exactly? A poorly worded resolution that called for a football playoff, but didn't specify what a playoff was?

The football schools will say that the NCAA has departed from its original mission and they want to start their own rival to the NCAA to protect the student athletes. They'll say this with a straight face and with no sense of irony. Congress may get involved (I would bet on it) but what is going to be the end result? Congress is going to take away funds from the state schools of California, Texas, Michigan, Florida (130+ votes) and tick off countless constituents (alumni and fans)? Sure they are.

 

[Craig P.]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Members of Congress get all nosy when Utah is left out of a frigging BCS title game. You think a bunch of universities, that despite their elitism, still rely on federal grants for research and federal support of the student loan system, are going to do something so outrageous as separate completely from the NCAA, slash as many non-revenue sports as possible to stay within the letter of Title IX while murdering the intent, irritate every alum of a university not in that 64 that holds political office, and go strolling off without any kind of response from Washington? Really?

If at least 26 states are either covered or apathetic, yeah, I do think so. (And I think you'd probably clear 26 if you counted.)

 

[redeagle]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Don't know if this was posted anywhere else, so forgive me if it is up somewhere.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...0-06-24-iowa-senators-big-ten-expansion_N.htm

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Don't know if this was posted anywhere else, so forgive me if it is up somewhere.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...0-06-24-iowa-senators-big-ten-expansion_N.htm

Grassley and Harkin rarely agree on anything, but looking out for Iowa's financial interests in the Big 10 is evidently one. How humerous is their letter talking about expanding into bigger markets. Omaha? You nuts?

 

[Happy]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Grassley and Harkin rarely agree on anything, but looking out for Iowa's financial interests in the Big 10 is evidently one. How humerous is their letter talking about expanding into bigger markets. Omaha? You nuts?

aren't they more worried about Iowa State being left as a mid-major than Iowa and the Big Ten.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Grassley and Harkin rarely agree on anything, but looking out for Iowa's financial interests in the Big 10 is evidently one.

Well, that is their job.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

aren't they more worried about Iowa State being left as a mid-major than Iowa and the Big Ten.

My guess is that they crunched the numbers, and figured that it wasn't worth the votes they would get if they could somehow shoehorn the Cyclones into the Big Ten via political wrangling.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Well, that is their job.

No it's not. There will be no federal legislation proposed or passed on the issue of Big Ten expansion. But it will give these two clowns the chance to bloviate.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

No it's not. There will be no federal legislation proposed or passed on the issue of Big Ten expansion. But it will give these two clowns the chance to bloviate.

Their job is to fight for the interests of their constituents. The University of Iowa (and their students, faculty, alumni and supporters) are part of that constituency.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

Their job is to fight for the interests of their constituents. The University of Iowa (and their students, faculty, alumni and supporters) are part of that constituency.

No it's not. Under your definition, everything is a federal matter. Like George Will says: we get ourselves into trouble by assuming every good idea needs to be a federal program and every bad idea needs to be a federal law.

The vast majority of the funding for state schools comes from state taxpayers and those funds, thankfully, are beyond the reach of self promoting, blowhard federal politicians.

"Fight for the interests of their constituents" is an open invitation to even more nonsense from Washington, which evidently meets with your approval. And who says that anyway, Henry Waxman? Their job is to offer, debate and vote on relevant federal legislation. "Fighting for the interests of their constituents" sounds more like the job description of a union goon than a United States senator.

And since, to my knowledge, the senators from Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania have been silent on this subject, are we to conclude that they've been derelict in their responsibilities?

The addition of a new school to a college athletic conference is hardly the business of the Senate, otherwise we'd have hearings on UNO and BSU coming in to the WCHA.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

And since, to my knowledge, the senators from Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania have been silent on this subject, are we to conclude that they've been derelict in their responsibilities?

The addition of a new school to a college athletic conference is hardly the business of the Senate, otherwise we'd have hearings on UNO and BSU coming in to the WCHA.

No, they just don't have the same concerns. If the BTN tries to play hardball with Comcast, then you can expect the senators from PA to get interested (especially Magic Bullet Boy). I said all this conference shuffling would get the attention of Congress, and it has.

And you trying to equate UNO and BSU joining a hockey conference to Nebraska joining the Big 10 is laughable. On the dollar level they're not even in the same universe.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

No, they just don't have the same concerns. If the BTN tries to play hardball with Comcast, then you can expect the senators from PA to get interested (especially Magic Bullet Boy). I said all this conference shuffling would get the attention of Congress, and it has.

And you trying to equate UNO and BSU joining a hockey conference to Nebraska joining the Big 10 is laughable. On the dollar level they're not even in the same universe.

If you want to identify yourself with a couple of cheap posturing politicians that's your business. While you're standing up for that liar Harkin, maybe he can regale us with some fairytales about his combat experience in 'Nam. Or we can relive this highlight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yshnhEHBtO4&feature=related

As Bugs Bunny would say: "what a maroon."

Congress has no business or interest in the financial arrangements of the Big Ten or any other conference. Harkin & Grassley do not equal "congress" except in your mind.

Maybe the hockey example is "laughable," but at least now we have the "Priceless Principle," it all depends on how much money is involved, not any legitimate legislative concern. Glad you explained it to us.

 

[Priceless]

Re: Notre Dame to Big 10?

If you want to identify yourself with a couple of cheap posturing politicians that's your business. While you're standing up for that liar Harkin, maybe he can regale us with some fairytales about his combat experience in 'Nam. Or we can relive this highlight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yshnhEHBtO4&feature=related

As Bugs Bunny would say: "what a maroon."

Congress has no business or interest in the financial arrangements of the Big Ten or any other conference. Harkin & Grassley do not equal "congress" except in your mind.

Maybe the hockey example is "laughable," but at least now we have the "Priceless Principle," it all depends on how much money is involved, not any legitimate legislative concern. Glad you explained it to us.

It's news to you that the amount of money is what matters? That explains a lot...