Then the fun begins. Win or go home.
it's never been done before, though Bo came pretty close a few times.
holds true, whatever he is doing is about gaining power, control, influence. And I don't think the rest of the football world is quite as ND-centric as we on this board would like to think; it really isn't all about us. While we have a well known, oft spoken name, most of the power in college football lies elsewhere.
Revenue whoring. Only way he can add subscriber fees is to add to the footprint via top markets.
Just adding teams is diminishing returns to each member. Have to add something significant in his mind, NYC/DMV/ATL.
Whether or not BTN is added to each cable package is up for debate, he seems to think it can happen.
I long for ala carte cable/satellite.
motivated by forcing ND into the Big 10. That's not to say landing ND isn't in his mind. I just don't think it's what's driving him. I think he's mostly motivated by increasing the B1G's media footprint and combating the conference's rust belt problem. Looking 50 years into the future, I think the ACC is a much bigger threat to takeover B1G turf than is the SEC. As I've said many times, it's all about demographics, and the growth in this country is not in PA, OH, and MI.
Yes, it's football, the big one. But at the moment the B1G is to basketball what the SEC is to football. There are five teams that could win the NCAA tournament. And they sure didn't get Maryland and Rutgers for their storied football programs.
I agree with you on his motivation regarding ND, though. I don't think that's what's driving this at all.
It's a market share problem, media footprint problem, growth problem, or however you want to characterize it.
As I posted yesterday:
Population growth from 1970 to 2010 (in millions)
PA 11.8 to 12.7 (+7.6%)
MI 8.9 to 9.9 (+11.2%)
OH 10.7 to 11.5 (+7.5%)
VA 4.6 to 8.0 (+73.9%)
NC 5.0 to 9.5 (+90.0%
GA 4.6 to 9.7 (+110.9%)
In 1970, PA, OH, and MI were the 3rd, 6th, and 7th most populous states. Currently, they're 6th, 7th, and 9th. It's not hard to envision all being out of the top 10 by 2030.
EDIT: Here's a link to current population growth rates. The highest ranked Big 10 state is Nebraska at 25, which is of little value considering how small they are. VA, NC, and GA are large states that are still growing.
Woe be to he who thinks all present trends continue. It is highly unlikely that any of those 3 states grow at the same pace. Eventually limits are reached. In Virginia, for example, in 1970 there were areas very close to DC that were barely developed. That sure isn't the case now.
business. GA, VA, and NC are all in the top 10. Some of the Big 10's smaller states do ok, but OH, IL, PA, and MI are all in the bottom half. That doesn't portend well for future growth. I agree that these trends are reversible, but they're not yet showing any real signs of reversing, maybe with the exception of Ohio due to fracking.
Business in Illinois ain't going away, despite the yeoman efforts of the worst politicians in the country to try to drive it out.
I'm not kidding, never underestimate the power of a major hub airport in today's economy. You named VA, NC and GA. One other thing they all have in common is a major hub airport. Virginia's growth has been around the DC, which has 2 major airports on the Virginia side and one is a hub (when Dulles was built it was in the middle of nowhere, and that is certainly not the case now). North Carolina has had growth in many areas but by far the most has been around Charlotte. Georgia's is all around Atlanta. You don't hear of people moving to Georgia so they could go to Macon or Valdosta.
Why has Georgia grown more than Alabama? Because of the decision back in the 30's to locate the main hub airport in the South in Atlanta instead of Birmingham. (The only other major hub airports in the southeast besides those I've named are in Florida and Tennessee. So it's not a shock that the population growth in states without a hub airports haven't grown at anywhere near the pace of the others, if they've even grown at all.)
But having said that, even with there is a limit and eventually the growth slows down or even stops.
Charlotte has grown only about as fast as RTP and Wilmington in the past 15 years.
We are not talking a major league city here. It's about the size of South Bend.
not only are Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, and PA, not growing. They are getting older. PA has the oldest average population in the country - even higher than Florida. -Compare that to "younger" states like VA, NC, GA, Tennessee, even MD. Older populations will need services like healthcare but not things like houses, cars, appliances and other services. At the margins, that is why Delany is doing this because he realizes without growth the B1G is demographically going no where.
You can argue that business is still going to grow in Chicago and I doubt anyone will disagree but can you say the same for Indianapolis, Detroit, Cleveland? If you compare to RTA, Charlotte, Richmond, etc. where there are younger populations, lower taxes, and smart people there really is no comparison.
Just think about demographics of a football team. If you are not pulling couple of guys from Florida, Texas, Georgia, etc. every year, your program is suffering.
Delaney would drop Md and Rutgers in a heartbeat if he could get UT to come aboard.
There is no doubt things will change...I mean the last great migration occurred as people moved from the south to the north for jobs probably during the industrial boom from the 1920s through to the 1960s. Now, it is reversing as people (younger people and boomers) move south for jobs and retirement. It will eventually change as a poster points out about Ohio but the great southern migration is probably in the 3-4 inning.
There are over 6 million people in the Chicago area. In 30 years or so I suspect there will still be at least 6 million.
As a resident of the area I hope it's not bigger. The traffic is already terrible.
Consider the difference between population growth and population stability.
Unless Houston or Dallas end up like Sao Paulo and have no limits, and if that happens God help them.
I'm not sure why we're even talking about Texas in this context in the first place. I think Delaney has given up on expansion there.
Chicago. One of the main reasons businesses locate in Chicago, as you say, is because Chicago has a major airport and is in the center of the country. Dallas has both those things and has a much better business climate.
It's just one example but one of the stated reasons was culture. There's more of it in Chicago.
I happen to be sitting right in the middle of Dallas as I type this, and I do like Dallas. But it's not what I would call a "world class" city culturally, whereas Chicago is. That isn't a small thing.
Population projections for both areas out to 2040 for roughly the same level of growth, by the way.
Here's one for Dallas: Dallas
Here's one for Chicago: Chicago
If population dense areas remain "television markets", then for the B1G to grow profits, they'll need to grow into populous regions. Delaney has demonstrated his willingness to grow the membership of the conference, one would assume primarily for monetary profit. The OP asked what's the endgame?
I don't have an answer to that, but expanding the southern footprint of the conference seems to make a good deal of sense.
I happen to agree with Tex in one regard, that expansion from the ACC presents more of a challenge to the Big 10 or B1G than the SEC.
away, but I do think business in Houston and Dallas will continue to grow faster. Houston and Dallas offer the same benefits as Chicago with fewer of the headaches. The Midwest also isn't as well positioned as Texas and the West Coast to do business with the emerging markets. By no means do I think we're going to see a rapid mass exodus of people from the Midwest. I just think other regions of the country are poised to grow a bit faster, which over time is going to dilute the Midwest's overall influence.
In fact I know I wouldn't.
Growth, sure, but the Texas cities aren't as big yet and have more room.
There are some apples and oranges comparisons here. For example Houston has a port, or more accurately, is near one. Dallas isn't.
And what do they have to do with B1G expansion, anyway?
Did it get shelved?
The third east-west runway is now open on the northernmost edge of the field, used primarily by regional jets. The fourth east-west runway is about two-thirds complete. This is where they hit a snag...part of that runway needed to be paved over an existing cemetery and they encountered some resistance there. As far as I know, all graves have been moved and construction is now free to continue.
At which point they will close the two northwest-to-southeast runways, the easternmost of which isn't used much
Things aren't nearly as grim as you might think. Don't expect so-called "news magazines" like Forbes to tell you so, though. Ohio in 2005 greatly restructured its tax code, particularly those affecting businesses. We may be amending our tax code even further.
Whether a state is "business friendly" depends greatly on the publisher's perspective. Site Selection magazine now ranks Ohio as #2 on the list of states most favorable for doing business (http://www.toledoblade.com/Economy/2012/11/03/Ohio-leaps-to-No-2-on-list-of-best-business-climates.html). Further bolstering this point, Ohio has led the nation for the last half decade in new business growth or expansion (as measured by the Governor's Cup awards, linked), besting even your native Texas.
I don't claim that everything is wine and roses, but our current Governor has turned around the state's finances and has the confidence of many in the business community. As you noted, we are sitting on vast reserves of natural gas, oil, and other NGLs. Our healthcare sector is booming. Ohio received nearly as much healthcare most venture cap funding as Illinois and Minnesota combined (http://www.gcpartnership.com/Media-Center/GCP-Every-Monday/~/media/Files/Every%20Monday/MidwestHealthCareVentureReportYE2012PressReleaseFINALlinkstoreport_c99d.ashx). Cleveland outpaced every other Midwestern city last year by a large margin (yes, even Chicago and Minneapolis). Venture cap investment in other industries is really starting to pick up as well for many reasons (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/15/idUS45702136720120715).
As far as growth being reversible, look no further than Seattle's turnaround the last 30 years as compared to the prior 30. Demographics always shift.
A robust economy depends on both jobs & employees. All your arguments were about jobs - and to be fair, that's been the part of the equation everyone focused on for as long as you & I have been alive because there were more qualified workers than there were jobs. All the talk was about bringing the unemployment rate down. In the very near future, there will be more jobs than qualified workers, and the balance of power will shift pretty dramatically. Qualified workers will have multiple jobs from which to choose, and many of them will be less or non location-dependent. In short, the workers of the future will get to choose where they live. And no offense to Ohio (I lived in Columbus for 2 years), it probably won't be Ohio. Read "When the Boomers Bail - How Demographics will Sort Communities into Winners and Losers" by Mark Lautman if you're interested in learning more.
If you mean more and more people will be positioned to telecommute, I think states like OH, IN, MI and can win again as some very well qualified candidates will choose to live in lower costs locations while getting paid at big city rates.
said mostly tongue-in-cheek, but in seriousness, there are low-cost of living states that offer much more than IN.
My office is in Indy. I'm almost never there and don't live there but people I work with do. It "offers" quite a bit, actually. And is one hell of a lot cheaper to live in than Chicago.
I agree that one well qualified candidates might choose to telecommute from IN.
But, if the position is truly location independent, I am of the opinion that more people would opt to live in:
warmer climes versus colder
low cost-of-living areas versus high
tax-friendly areas versus not (this factors into cost-of-living, really)
I don't think those are revolutionary thoughts and the growth of population areas certainly supports them.
Mostly though, I was mostly poking fun at Indiana. Having lived in northern IN for 25 years, including most of my youth and young-adulthood I feel I'm entitled to do so.
It loses on climate. It loses on topography.
If I could get paid the same, I'd rather live in Granger than Elmhurst.
I'm not sure it'd attract them.
I think the issue will be a combination of retaining & attracting qualified workers. I'm in HR and we are already seeing this in many areas. When Economic Developers in our company look at site selection critera, workforce availablity is now at or near the very top of the list. That wasn't the case just 10 years ago. It used to be factors like land availability/cost, tax rates/breaks, utilities, transportation, etc. Now it's a question of do you have - and can you keep - the knowledge workers we need to run our company.
Not really contrasting with TX, etc.
LBJ is coming back.
OH, PA, MI, and IL were about 21% of the population in 1970 and are now down to about 15%. The Big 10's natural market is getting smaller and smaller, and when you're in the television business, as the Big 10 is, that's problematic.