Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
Author Message
TexanMark Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,637
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation: 1326
I Root For: Syracuse
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Post: #61
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
Or open the door for the B1G's other teams to come into NJ. Lots of kids in NJ want to get out of NJ for college.
05-03-2013 09:19 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #62
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-03-2013 07:08 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:55 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 07:57 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  RU hit its grand slam with two out in the bottom of the ninth when it looked like the game was lost for them. Sorry fellas, nobody did better than us in realignment. TCU and Utah did well going from th MWC the BCS. But we went from AAC purgatory and making LESS $$ than the old BE, to the BIG time and the highest payout in college sports. Nobody faced contrasting fates as great as that.
You're forgetting to divide B1G revenue by 14 schools and PAC by 12. Biggest payout difference goes to Utah (old MWC and new MWC less than new/old Big East). Rutgers also loses recruiting presence in SE while Utah gains presence in Cali.
You are forgetting to add the research grant money the CIC helps member schools bring in. That is about four times the amount of the tv money. Our Fla recruiting was never based on getting one game in the state every other year. It is based on FLa producing way more D1 talent than the home schools could keep. Now our profile is being raised which may not matter in Fla, but sure will give us a better chance at keeping the home grown talent from going out of state.

How did the CIC get to be such a powerful group on this board? The aims of the CIC are fairly modest and mostly relate to achieving economies of scale rather than dispersing huge grant sums (http://www.cic.net/news-and-publications...overview). Not to take away from the B1G and their academic prowess (I got my graduate degree from a B1G school), but it's not derived from CIC magic.
05-03-2013 10:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
lew240z Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 699
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 23
I Root For: Wyoming
Location: Saint Louis, MO
Post: #63
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-02-2013 10:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nobody is really going to know for sure who won realignment for a few years. If New Jersey and Maryland add significantly to the Big 10 earnings then those additions will be regarded differently in a few years. Who knows what the ultimate impact of Notre Dame's quasi affiliation with the ACC will bring? Louisville looks to be good for them. All I know is that Missouri and Texas A&M look to be good additions for the SEC and will bring us more content for the network and larger markets to sell it to. I'm happy with what we have done, but I also want to see how these details play out over the next few years before announcing who won and lost in this process.

I wonder why the SEC didn't also add Oklahoma and OSU when it had the chance?

The SEC tried but Oklahoma said no. Oklahoma State would be prohibited by the state leg from leaving the Big XII-II without Oklahoma. Also, friggin Alabama didn't want to move to the SEC East. Auburn would gladly have switched.

That is absolutely untrue. There is no such law, nor is such a law being considered.
05-03-2013 11:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #64
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-03-2013 11:33 PM)lew240z Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 10:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nobody is really going to know for sure who won realignment for a few years. If New Jersey and Maryland add significantly to the Big 10 earnings then those additions will be regarded differently in a few years. Who knows what the ultimate impact of Notre Dame's quasi affiliation with the ACC will bring? Louisville looks to be good for them. All I know is that Missouri and Texas A&M look to be good additions for the SEC and will bring us more content for the network and larger markets to sell it to. I'm happy with what we have done, but I also want to see how these details play out over the next few years before announcing who won and lost in this process.

I wonder why the SEC didn't also add Oklahoma and OSU when it had the chance?

The SEC tried but Oklahoma said no. Oklahoma State would be prohibited by the state leg from leaving the Big XII-II without Oklahoma. Also, friggin Alabama didn't want to move to the SEC East. Auburn would gladly have switched.

That is absolutely untrue. There is no such law, nor is such a law being considered.

That's what the SEC was told regarding the Okla schools. The legislature doesn't have to pass a law, they can simply use appropriations to enforce their wishes. Or threaten to not renew the terms of any Board member at the school that votes contrary to their wishes. Or not renew the contract of the University President. It happens all the time. And it doesn't even have to be a majority. It could simply be a powerful state legislature committee chairman, for example.

Va Tech got an ACC bid because the Va leg leaned - hard - on UVa. NC State would have been a better add than Mizzou for the SEC but the NC legislature threatened NC State (UNC isn't interested in leaving Duke - and the SEC will never add Duke) to not upset the ACC apple cart. Baylor got in the Big XII thanks to government pressure (from then Governor Ann Richards - a Baylor alumni). It happens all the time. Sometimes, a school can just dare the legislature to act. But its very risky (and remember the state decides who hires and fires the University President at public schools). So its not actual legislation that forces the hands of the schools, its the threat of action.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2013 12:30 AM by Tom in Lazybrook.)
05-04-2013 12:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,007
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2370
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #65
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-02-2013 01:50 PM)TerryD Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 01:25 PM)stever20 Wrote:  how much access Notre Dame got for the Orange Bowl is totally up for debate. I mean, only 2x in 8 years, and they have to finish ahead of SEC and Big Ten to get that access. Last year, if they had lost 1 game, they aren't in the Orange Bowl. 2 games, and they aren't in the BCS period. Being realistic, they have less access now than they did before to the BCS- because the spots are going to be selected on merit rather than popularity. Really hurts the big name schools who finish 14th but get into the BCS on their name.

Don't sweat it, Steve-O. ND will be just fine. :)

You were all doom and gloom about ND's chances of making it past Oregon and Kansas State last November too.

Merit is the way it should be, for all schools.

Notre Dame, like every other school in the 10 FBS conferences, is on a merit basis regarding the playoffs. But, he has a point about playing in the BCS-Access bowls. My understanding is that if Notre Dame does not make the playoffs, it can only play in the Orange Bowl, and only once every four years. Notre Dame got a lousy deal on Access Bowl access.

Plus, by playing those 5 mostly-lousy ACC games, Notre Dame runs the risk that it will get passed over by the Orange Bowl because the ACC rep could be a team it played during the season. In such situations, the OB deal has a re-match clause that allows the OB to pass over ND in favor of an SEC or B1G team, even if ND is highest-ranked.

Imagine a 12-year stretch in which ND is consistently ranked between #5 and #10, but never in the top 4. Any other school in FBS with those same rankings, including those from the "group of 5" minor conferences, would never make the playoffs but would surely play in a high-prestige Access Bowl at least 8-9 times during that stretch. In contrast, these highly-ranked Notre Dame teams would play in such games only twice. The other 10 years they would find itself in the Peach Bowl, the Belk Bowl, the Music City Bowl, or whatever other low-rent bowls the ACC finds for it.

Bad news .... Bottom line is that the Access Bowl situation is "merit" based, but only for Notre Dame. While Notre Dame must meet stringent merit requirements to get into the Orange Bowl, members of other P5 conferences, and even the outside Group of 5, can get into them with far less meritorious performance.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2013 08:34 AM by quo vadis.)
05-04-2013 08:30 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Melky Cabrera Offline
Bill Bradley
*

Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #66
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-03-2013 10:30 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 07:08 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:55 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 07:57 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  RU hit its grand slam with two out in the bottom of the ninth when it looked like the game was lost for them. Sorry fellas, nobody did better than us in realignment. TCU and Utah did well going from th MWC the BCS. But we went from AAC purgatory and making LESS $$ than the old BE, to the BIG time and the highest payout in college sports. Nobody faced contrasting fates as great as that.
You're forgetting to divide B1G revenue by 14 schools and PAC by 12. Biggest payout difference goes to Utah (old MWC and new MWC less than new/old Big East). Rutgers also loses recruiting presence in SE while Utah gains presence in Cali.
You are forgetting to add the research grant money the CIC helps member schools bring in. That is about four times the amount of the tv money. Our Fla recruiting was never based on getting one game in the state every other year. It is based on FLa producing way more D1 talent than the home schools could keep. Now our profile is being raised which may not matter in Fla, but sure will give us a better chance at keeping the home grown talent from going out of state.

How did the CIC get to be such a powerful group on this board? The aims of the CIC are fairly modest and mostly relate to achieving economies of scale rather than dispersing huge grant sums (http://www.cic.net/news-and-publications...overview). Not to take away from the B1G and their academic prowess (I got my graduate degree from a B1G school), but it's not derived from CIC magic.

The CIC serves as the lobbying arm for the B1G universities, vying for the billions of dollars that the federal government gives out in research grants every years. Hardly modest.
05-04-2013 10:12 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #67
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-04-2013 10:12 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 10:30 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 07:08 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:55 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 07:57 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  RU hit its grand slam with two out in the bottom of the ninth when it looked like the game was lost for them. Sorry fellas, nobody did better than us in realignment. TCU and Utah did well going from th MWC the BCS. But we went from AAC purgatory and making LESS $$ than the old BE, to the BIG time and the highest payout in college sports. Nobody faced contrasting fates as great as that.
You're forgetting to divide B1G revenue by 14 schools and PAC by 12. Biggest payout difference goes to Utah (old MWC and new MWC less than new/old Big East). Rutgers also loses recruiting presence in SE while Utah gains presence in Cali.
You are forgetting to add the research grant money the CIC helps member schools bring in. That is about four times the amount of the tv money. Our Fla recruiting was never based on getting one game in the state every other year. It is based on FLa producing way more D1 talent than the home schools could keep. Now our profile is being raised which may not matter in Fla, but sure will give us a better chance at keeping the home grown talent from going out of state.

How did the CIC get to be such a powerful group on this board? The aims of the CIC are fairly modest and mostly relate to achieving economies of scale rather than dispersing huge grant sums (http://www.cic.net/news-and-publications...overview). Not to take away from the B1G and their academic prowess (I got my graduate degree from a B1G school), but it's not derived from CIC magic.

The CIC serves as the lobbying arm for the B1G universities, vying for the billions of dollars that the federal government gives out in research grants every years. Hardly modest.
One does not generally "lobby" for grants. Grant review boards, which is how most grants achieve fundings, have specific instructions on how to review the merit of grant proposals and this is done without lobbying and is to be based on merit of the specific proposal, not school prestige and certainly not conference affiliation. The power of the CIC in achieving additional grant funding for member schools is a myth propogated on sports message boards alone. People who are actually in academia and writing grant proposals greet this with a big "Huh?". http://mgoblog.com/diaries/some-hard-num...-expansion
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2013 11:09 AM by jrj84105.)
05-04-2013 11:08 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
dawgitall Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,111
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation: 195
I Root For: ECU/ASU/NCSU
Location:
Post: #68
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-04-2013 12:24 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 11:33 PM)lew240z Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 10:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:04 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Nobody is really going to know for sure who won realignment for a few years. If New Jersey and Maryland add significantly to the Big 10 earnings then those additions will be regarded differently in a few years. Who knows what the ultimate impact of Notre Dame's quasi affiliation with the ACC will bring? Louisville looks to be good for them. All I know is that Missouri and Texas A&M look to be good additions for the SEC and will bring us more content for the network and larger markets to sell it to. I'm happy with what we have done, but I also want to see how these details play out over the next few years before announcing who won and lost in this process.

I wonder why the SEC didn't also add Oklahoma and OSU when it had the chance?

The SEC tried but Oklahoma said no. Oklahoma State would be prohibited by the state leg from leaving the Big XII-II without Oklahoma. Also, friggin Alabama didn't want to move to the SEC East. Auburn would gladly have switched.

That is absolutely untrue. There is no such law, nor is such a law being considered.

That's what the SEC was told regarding the Okla schools. The legislature doesn't have to pass a law, they can simply use appropriations to enforce their wishes. Or threaten to not renew the terms of any Board member at the school that votes contrary to their wishes. Or not renew the contract of the University President. It happens all the time. And it doesn't even have to be a majority. It could simply be a powerful state legislature committee chairman, for example.

Va Tech got an ACC bid because the Va leg leaned - hard - on UVa. NC State would have been a better add than Mizzou for the SEC but the NC legislature threatened NC State (UNC isn't interested in leaving Duke - and the SEC will never add Duke) to not upset the ACC apple cart. Baylor got in the Big XII thanks to government pressure (from then Governor Ann Richards - a Baylor alumni). It happens all the time. Sometimes, a school can just dare the legislature to act. But its very risky (and remember the state decides who hires and fires the University President at public schools). So its not actual legislation that forces the hands of the schools, its the threat of action.

Where exactly did you get this information? Sources please. I keep up with the goings on in the NCGA fairly closely and I don't recall anything along these lines. At this point the UNC System is just trying to weather the storm of complete anti-education tea party domination of the GA. Unlike in the past there are no UNC system allies with any power in the GA. They are all sitting on the back bench totally ignored. Most of these clowns in power either moved here from somewhere else, attended a private college, didn't go to college at all, or some combination of the three. The sacred cow that was the UNC System is no more.
05-04-2013 11:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
brista21 Offline
The Birthplace of College Football
*

Posts: 10,042
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 262
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: North Jersey

Donators
Post: #69
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-03-2013 09:19 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  Or open the door for the B1G's other teams to come into NJ. Lots of kids in NJ want to get out of NJ for college.

This. Initially this is the sort of thing that will happen. We saw it to an extent with the 2013 class and we're seeing it with the 2014 class. Over time we will have ample opportunity to change it as either Flood's staff gets its recruiting sea legs or as we bring in a new regime.
05-04-2013 11:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tom in Lazybrook Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 22,299
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation: 446
I Root For: So Alabama, GWU
Location: Houston
Post: #70
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-04-2013 11:24 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 12:24 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 11:33 PM)lew240z Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 10:41 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:08 PM)Underdog Wrote:  I wonder why the SEC didn't also add Oklahoma and OSU when it had the chance?

The SEC tried but Oklahoma said no. Oklahoma State would be prohibited by the state leg from leaving the Big XII-II without Oklahoma. Also, friggin Alabama didn't want to move to the SEC East. Auburn would gladly have switched.

That is absolutely untrue. There is no such law, nor is such a law being considered.

That's what the SEC was told regarding the Okla schools. The legislature doesn't have to pass a law, they can simply use appropriations to enforce their wishes. Or threaten to not renew the terms of any Board member at the school that votes contrary to their wishes. Or not renew the contract of the University President. It happens all the time. And it doesn't even have to be a majority. It could simply be a powerful state legislature committee chairman, for example.

Va Tech got an ACC bid because the Va leg leaned - hard - on UVa. NC State would have been a better add than Mizzou for the SEC but the NC legislature threatened NC State (UNC isn't interested in leaving Duke - and the SEC will never add Duke) to not upset the ACC apple cart. Baylor got in the Big XII thanks to government pressure (from then Governor Ann Richards - a Baylor alumni). It happens all the time. Sometimes, a school can just dare the legislature to act. But its very risky (and remember the state decides who hires and fires the University President at public schools). So its not actual legislation that forces the hands of the schools, its the threat of action.

Where exactly did you get this information? Sources please. I keep up with the goings on in the NCGA fairly closely and I don't recall anything along these lines. At this point the UNC System is just trying to weather the storm of complete anti-education tea party domination of the GA. Unlike in the past there are no UNC system allies with any power in the GA. They are all sitting on the back bench totally ignored. Most of these clowns in power either moved here from somewhere else, attended a private college, didn't go to college at all, or some combination of the three. The sacred cow that was the UNC System is no more.

This was the story being posited (basically internet chatter) during the last round of expansion. It might simply be NC State or others simply planting that story as a way of saying.. "we're not interested in moving". I may have gotten the situation in Virginia, where the legislature was involved, and NC mixed up.

I wouldn't put anything past the current NCGA. From what I've seen, its a real mess.
05-04-2013 12:15 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Melky Cabrera Offline
Bill Bradley
*

Posts: 4,716
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 100
I Root For: UConn
Location:
Post: #71
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?
(05-04-2013 11:08 AM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 10:12 AM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 10:30 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  
(05-03-2013 07:08 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 09:55 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  You're forgetting to divide B1G revenue by 14 schools and PAC by 12. Biggest payout difference goes to Utah (old MWC and new MWC less than new/old Big East). Rutgers also loses recruiting presence in SE while Utah gains presence in Cali.
You are forgetting to add the research grant money the CIC helps member schools bring in. That is about four times the amount of the tv money. Our Fla recruiting was never based on getting one game in the state every other year. It is based on FLa producing way more D1 talent than the home schools could keep. Now our profile is being raised which may not matter in Fla, but sure will give us a better chance at keeping the home grown talent from going out of state.

How did the CIC get to be such a powerful group on this board? The aims of the CIC are fairly modest and mostly relate to achieving economies of scale rather than dispersing huge grant sums (http://www.cic.net/news-and-publications...overview). Not to take away from the B1G and their academic prowess (I got my graduate degree from a B1G school), but it's not derived from CIC magic.

The CIC serves as the lobbying arm for the B1G universities, vying for the billions of dollars that the federal government gives out in research grants every years. Hardly modest.
One does not generally "lobby" for grants. Grant review boards, which is how most grants achieve fundings, have specific instructions on how to review the merit of grant proposals and this is done without lobbying and is to be based on merit of the specific proposal, not school prestige and certainly not conference affiliation. The power of the CIC in achieving additional grant funding for member schools is a myth propogated on sports message boards alone. People who are actually in academia and writing grant proposals greet this with a big "Huh?". http://mgoblog.com/diaries/some-hard-num...-expansion

I'm not sure what you think this blog link proves. The author himself acknowledges simplistic statistics and errors in his original entry. He is simply responding to Mosher Jordan, whose original blog entry I find much more compelling and well reasoned. Refer to the link below for some back-and-forth regarding the original blog entry with criticisms and defense of the original premise:

http://mgoblog.com/users/mosherjordan
05-04-2013 04:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jrj84105 Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,686
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 252
I Root For: Utes
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Matt Brown article: Who Won Realignment?

I'm not sure what you think this blog link proves. The author himself acknowledges simplistic statistics and errors in his original entry. He is simply responding to Mosher Jordan, whose original blog entry I find much more compelling and well reasoned. Refer to the link below for some back-and-forth regarding the original blog entry with criticisms and defense of the original premise:

http://mgoblog.com/users/mosherjordan
[/quote]

That's because it's a sports blog and those are the only places where people are actually arguing this idiocy (read the comments, not the blog). Try looking at my first link- from the actual CIC website stating their directives and accomplishments. For the record, working down the street from the CIC's headquarters at a CIC member institution writing federal research grant proposals, can you guess how much interaction I had with the CIC? Zero, because that is not the purpose of the CIC office. It can't be any clearer. And as research/teaching faculty at an SEC and later PAC school, I can tell you that there are no conference logos on grant proposals. You can read about the CIC all you want on a sports message boards but that's not how it works. If you can find someone else who has done federally funded research at a CIC member university to contradict what I'm telling you, then we can have a discussion.
(This post was last modified: 05-04-2013 05:49 PM by jrj84105.)
05-04-2013 05:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.