(01-07-2018 08:38 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  It’s worked out well for Maryland

(01-07-2018 09:01 AM)Norm DaNiner Wrote:  College sports in general has lost its' soul. The rivalries are gone for the most part. The conferences (including the one I follow CUSA) make zero geographical sense. I am happy for Maryland. The ACC is full of the likes Louisville, Miami, Florida State and UNC, not exactly the role model of the "right way" to do college athletics. It is comical to watch the hypocrisy that comes out some of these universities and the ACC office in Greensboro. There is one primary driver behind college athletics and it is not education, the athletes themselves or alumni/fans.. it is.....$$$. That does not just apply to the ACC but just about every conference outside the Ivy and Patriot Leagues.

College athletics needs to hit the reset button. If ESPN continues to struggle it may just happen.

(01-07-2018 09:01 AM)Norm DaNiner Wrote:  College sports in general has lost its' soul.
College athletics needs to hit the reset button. If ESPN continues to struggle it may just happen.

(01-07-2018 11:28 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The fact that Feinstein actually wrote that "it was Louisville basketball that Swofford and company were courting" is laughable when every major move for the last 20 years has been completely motivated by capitalizing on football and football markets. Not to mention it is completely ignorant of how things actually played out in the ACC when UL was actually invited. It's a damn shame, as he used to be one of the best, but is either intentionally or unintentionally obtuse to college athletics outside of the world of college hoops, or just engaging in being an absolute shill.

Scandals and all, it is hard to argue that the ACC didn't upgrade athletically with UL. And the ACC, like all athletic conferences outside the Ivy, is in the business of athletics and making money through athletics, and not anything else. Losing Maryland was costly to the ACC primarily because it opened the door to the eastern media markets, which the ACC had designs on monopolizing since at least 2003, to another power conference; not because of any prowess of Maryland athletics itself or the loss of any particularly significant high profile rivalry games for any other members of the conference.

(01-07-2018 02:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 11:28 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The fact that Feinstein actually wrote that "it was Louisville basketball that Swofford and company were courting" is laughable when every major move for the last 20 years has been completely motivated by capitalizing on football and football markets. Not to mention it is completely ignorant of how things actually played out in the ACC when UL was actually invited. It's a damn shame, as he used to be one of the best, but is either intentionally or unintentionally obtuse to college athletics outside of the world of college hoops, or just engaging in being an absolute shill.

Scandals and all, it is hard to argue that the ACC didn't upgrade athletically with UL. And the ACC, like all athletic conferences outside the Ivy, is in the business of athletics and making money through athletics, and not anything else. Losing Maryland was costly to the ACC primarily because it opened the door to the eastern media markets, which the ACC had designs on monopolizing since at least 2003, to another power conference; not because of any prowess of Maryland athletics itself or the loss of any particularly significant high profile rivalry games for any other members of the conference.

There were some strategic aspects in taking Louisville as well. The Big 12 might have found some added stability if Cincinnati and Louisville had ever been taken. By taking Louisville the ACC not only improved their athletics, but they essentially removed the obviously better of the two potential candidates for the Big 12 essentially sealing their position as the less viable conference. Until the revenue gap between the Big 12 and ACC is closed it is important perceptually to be the more stable. I think ESPN realized this and last year's entourage of would be applicants to the Big 12 proves this move to have been advantageous in that regard.

(01-07-2018 02:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 11:28 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The fact that Feinstein actually wrote that "it was Louisville basketball that Swofford and company were courting" is laughable when every major move for the last 20 years has been completely motivated by capitalizing on football and football markets. Not to mention it is completely ignorant of how things actually played out in the ACC when UL was actually invited. It's a damn shame, as he used to be one of the best, but is either intentionally or unintentionally obtuse to college athletics outside of the world of college hoops, or just engaging in being an absolute shill.

Scandals and all, it is hard to argue that the ACC didn't upgrade athletically with UL. And the ACC, like all athletic conferences outside the Ivy, is in the business of athletics and making money through athletics, and not anything else. Losing Maryland was costly to the ACC primarily because it opened the door to the eastern media markets, which the ACC had designs on monopolizing since at least 2003, to another power conference; not because of any prowess of Maryland athletics itself or the loss of any particularly significant high profile rivalry games for any other members of the conference.

There were some strategic aspects in taking Louisville as well. The Big 12 might have found some added stability if Cincinnati and Louisville had ever been taken. By taking Louisville the ACC not only improved their athletics, but they essentially removed the obviously better of the two potential candidates for the Big 12 essentially sealing their position as the less viable conference. Until the revenue gap between the Big 12 and ACC is closed it is important perceptually to be the more stable. I think ESPN realized this and last year's entourage of would be applicants to the Big 12 proves this move to have been advantageous in that regard.

(01-07-2018 02:40 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  Maryland will be back in the ACC within 20-30 years, imo. Can’t see them in the B1G lasting more than a generation.

(01-07-2018 02:38 PM)Bogg Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 02:21 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 11:28 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  The fact that Feinstein actually wrote that "it was Louisville basketball that Swofford and company were courting" is laughable when every major move for the last 20 years has been completely motivated by capitalizing on football and football markets. Not to mention it is completely ignorant of how things actually played out in the ACC when UL was actually invited. It's a damn shame, as he used to be one of the best, but is either intentionally or unintentionally obtuse to college athletics outside of the world of college hoops, or just engaging in being an absolute shill.

Scandals and all, it is hard to argue that the ACC didn't upgrade athletically with UL. And the ACC, like all athletic conferences outside the Ivy, is in the business of athletics and making money through athletics, and not anything else. Losing Maryland was costly to the ACC primarily because it opened the door to the eastern media markets, which the ACC had designs on monopolizing since at least 2003, to another power conference; not because of any prowess of Maryland athletics itself or the loss of any particularly significant high profile rivalry games for any other members of the conference.

There were some strategic aspects in taking Louisville as well. The Big 12 might have found some added stability if Cincinnati and Louisville had ever been taken. By taking Louisville the ACC not only improved their athletics, but they essentially removed the obviously better of the two potential candidates for the Big 12 essentially sealing their position as the less viable conference. Until the revenue gap between the Big 12 and ACC is closed it is important perceptually to be the more stable. I think ESPN realized this and last year's entourage of would be applicants to the Big 12 proves this move to have been advantageous in that regard.

Well, that and FSU/Clemson had made arrangements to leave if they didn't get the football school of their choice. It's really no more complicated than that - with no GOR in place at the time the football schools had a figurative gun to the conference's head.

(01-07-2018 02:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  There were some strategic aspects in taking Louisville as well. The
The revenue gap is a joke. Big 12 viewership> ACC. When you have schools like Boise State that have more viewers for ratings than several ACC schools? Than, you do have a serious question in why give the ACC their own network when several of their schools at times could only garner a 500K ratings. It does not help that ACC when you have schools in the ACC keep violating the NCAA's rules and only get slapped on the wrist. Miami Florida and the UNC should both be on death penalties for their recent actions. Louisville basketball should also get the death penalty. Right now, we are rewarding schools to do bad things, but punish schools doing the right things.

As for Boise State? They should be making the same amount of money the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, PAC 12 and SEC for their ratings in football. Especially in bowl games. As it is, the fans are being driven away from the P5 schools and going towards the top G5 schools. The only way to do this is to do a collective bargaining for all D1 schools and spread the wealth equally.

(01-07-2018 02:36 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  As for Boise State? They should be making the same amount of money the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, PAC 12 and SEC for their ratings in football. Especially in bowl games. As it is, the fans are being driven away from the P5 schools and going towards the top G5 schools. The only way to do this is to do a collective bargaining for all D1 schools and spread the wealth equally.

(01-07-2018 02:55 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  It is possible there will be some type of reorganization from the Northeastern schools (Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Penn State, Boston College, UConn), but - as with everything - money will drive the movement. With cable being non-existent in 30 years, it's very possible we will see more geographic conferences from the non-blue blood power program.

Maryland and Rutgers weren't just home runs for the B1G, they were a grand slam. Getting the access to NYC/DC, along with the recruiting areas and like-minded land grant institution-statuses were all perfect fits. Long-term, the B1G undoubtedly still has its sights set on Virginia, UNC, Georgia Tech and Florida State. They got the Northeast to in 2011; in the 2020's I anticipate them wanting to move South.

(01-07-2018 09:39 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-07-2018 08:38 AM)Gamecock Wrote:  It’s worked out well for Maryland

In some ways, but for Maryland hoops fans - and as the article notes, in terms of passion Maryland is a basketball school and always will be - the B1G will never be the same as playing Virginia and the Carolina schools. Those were 60+ year hoops rivalries that were lost. They face the same problem Nebraska faces on the other end - losing all those generations-old Big 8 rivalries in football to get that B1G money.