I think the Pitt v RU battling is silly because the real question isn't between those two but, instead should the ACC have added 4 (incl RU) while they had the chance.

They made two raids and still don't control the northeast/midatlantic geography. I see the ACC like the South at Gettysburg. They missed some easy, early opportunities to claim some ground which, once lost, they won't be able to get back to.

(06-06-2013 12:25 PM)billyjack Wrote:  Am I the only one here that's never heard of "Joe Schmidt"...? I do know of Joe Walton, if it's the guy who used to coach the Jets? Schottenheimer (played before my time) was in the middle of that outstanding "Boston Pops" Patriots defense that went 2-12. That gave us the #1 pick where we drafted Jim Plunkett.

Here, let me introduce you to him.

Joe Schmidt

All that no-name did was make 10 Pro Bowls in 13 NFL seasons, which somehow got that bum inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1973. Not at all impressive.

You should probably stick to basketball.

(06-06-2013 12:59 PM)krup Wrote:  I think the Pitt v RU battling is silly because the real question isn't between those two but, instead should the ACC have added 4 (incl RU) while they had the chance.

They made two raids and still don't control the northeast/midatlantic geography. I see the ACC like the South at Gettysburg. They missed some easy, early opportunities to claim some ground which, once lost, they won't be able to get back to.

Well so did the B1G, Right (mizzou and kansas) At that point I dont even thing the B1G goes with RU or MD

(06-06-2013 01:09 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 12:25 PM)billyjack Wrote:  Am I the only one here that's never heard of "Joe Schmidt"...?...

Here, let me introduce you to him.

Joe Schmidt

All that no-name did was make 10 Pro Bowls in 13 NFL seasons, which somehow got that bum inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 1973. Not at all impressive.

You should probably stick to basketball.

Thanks for giving me a heads up on him. I am here to learn. Somehow I must have missed his Steve Sabol biography clip.

I absolutely think the ACC overvalued Pitt...I have no idea if it was in regards to the B12 rumors about going after Pitt. It makes some sense that the B12 settled for TCU because Pitt had been offered by the ACC. Pitt has more value when coupled with WVU and less on its own.

Personally, I think Rutgers has more market potential than Pitt ever will. Pitt is relegated to western PA and is dwarfed by Penn State marketwise. As folks have pointed out they play in an NFL stadium. They have a well supported basketball program partly because it is the city's only basketball team. While Rutgers is in between some major pro hotbeds in NYC and Philly...it commands the NJ collegiate market by its status. It has value to those that play there as we will soon see when Penn State, Ohio State, etc...come in. It now HAS the money to compete it never had before....and it had righted its ship lately (the last 6 months withstanding).

The Rutgers/Maryland add didn't surprise me by the B1G...it was talked about when Penn State was added that they were next....the three form a trio. The ACC lost something when Maryland left and it added Louisville...it lost a significant hold on the mid-atlantic market to the B1G. The B1G has the three big players long term in that market and I would put WVU over Pitt and Syracuse long term as well. We have seen little fan support with BC...they are an afterthought in the ACC. IMO, the ACC's adds are window dressing...with no substance. UConn could arguably have more value than the ACC's 3 northeast programs.

(06-06-2013 12:59 PM)krup Wrote:  I think the Pitt v RU battling is silly because the real question isn't between those two but, instead should the ACC have added 4 (incl RU) while they had the chance.

They made two raids and still don't control the northeast/midatlantic geography. I see the ACC like the South at Gettysburg. They missed some easy, early opportunities to claim some ground which, once lost, they won't be able to get back to.

Yeah, I've heard that theory before but I don't see it that way at all.

First of all, in the absence of a GOR - and the ACC didn't adopt a GOR until AFTER Maryland was taken - what would have prevented Rutgers from bolting the ACC once the B1G offered just like Maryland did?

If there isn't a good answer to that question - and there obviously isn't - then it's probably not an especially plausible scenario.

Also, let's say that the ACC would have added Rutgers and say Connecticut - each fine schools and decent programs - and would have somehow convinced schools that thought they were in no danger of signing away their rights, what would that have done to bolster the ACC's TV contract and/or credibility?

I know Swofford is a ninja, but is he also a hypnotist?

The ACC needed to add only two schools to reopen their television contract - which is what prompted expansion in the first place - and they chose the two programs that their analysis deemed the most attractive.

Look, I understand why the OP has a red arse. I would too if I was in his spot. UConn got HOSED and there's no doubt about that. Cincy did too and so too did USF. They all deserve a better fate than what has befallen them so far. However, the truth is they were always behind Pitt, Syracuse and West Virginia in the BE food chain and that was proven when conference expansion-ageddon began to explode.

Look, I understand that it's impossible for some people to fathom why any league would want a program that has no fans, overrated academics, no football history after Marino and Dorsett, an overrated basketball program, a terrible traveling fan base, and which rents its facilities from the Steelers. However apparently two different major athletic leagues - the Big 12 and the ACC - did not remotely agree with that highly scientific analysis as each made well documented pitches for Pitt to join their respective leagues. Hell, even the B1G admitted Pitt was "on the table" before Penn State quashed their bid.

So let me ask you guys, what does that tell you? Scratch that, let me rephrase the question: What conclusions would a normal, well-adjusted human being draw from those two invitations?

The answers are either of the following:

1.) The ACC and B12 are each run by a bunch of idiots who have no idea how to analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each available program.

2.) The message board intelligencia has no earthly idea what the phuck they are talking about and makes up a lot of its own facts to suit a previously created narrative which always - not sometimes, ALWAYS - is a self serving attempt to bolster their own school while diminishing someone else.

I don't know about you guys but I'm going to go with option No. 2 because I possess a brain.

(06-06-2013 11:54 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I'll tell you what, St. John's flamer:

List for me the top 10 greatest players in the history of Rutgers football - and you can go all the way back to 1869 if you like - and I will submit a list comprised only of players that graduated AFTER Marino and Dorsett left (meaning no Tony Dorsett, Dan Marino, Mike Ditka, Marty Schottenheimer, Joe Walton, Joe Schmidt, etc.) and I guarantee you that my list will STILL absolutely blow the doors off yours.

Want to play?

Okay sPitt fan, tell me who ya got? Rutgers are putting tons of players into the league now.

Pitt has 25 current players on an NFL roster.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/college/_/letter/p

Rutgers has 33 current players on an NFL roster.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/college/_/letter/r

So Rutgers puts more players in the league and has beaten the Panthers 5 times in the last 10 years but somehow Pitt is the better program? Okay sPitt, if you say so.

(06-06-2013 01:34 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  ....and it had righted its ship lately (the last 6 months withstanding).

This sums up the Rutgers proponents perfectly. Don't look at their long term history or their most recent history but if you look at it from this arbitrary date to this equally arbitrary date, they are awesome and have gobs of potential!

Struggling businesses try that accounting trick all the time. They'll say things like "Look, I know that we have under-performed for a while now and that our first, second and fourth quarters of this year were also disappointing. However, we had a GREAT third quarter and if we can just find a way to replicate that more frequently, our possibilities are endless."

Occasionally, someone buys that logic. Most of the time, prudent people do not.

(06-06-2013 12:41 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 11:38 AM)esayem Wrote:  Rutgers would not have kept UMD in the conference, they're a much better fit in the Big 10 anyway.

Georgetown puts us right back in that market, if it's a major threat, but I think UVA can carry just as much weight in DC. Let the Big 10 have Baltimore.

Add Georgetown for all-sports but football and raid AAC for Navy as football only.

GTown isn't leaving. Unlike UofL they aren't conference jumpers. How many have you guys been in? Is this the fourth in 40 years? So you guys will make a play for the SEC once this GoR's is up?

Just give me 10 names since 1983 and I will respond in kind. I promise, no tricks. I don't have to resort to any nonsense. Just fire your 10 best Rutgers University names my way and let's see how well it works out for you?

(06-06-2013 01:45 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 01:34 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  ....and it had righted its ship lately (the last 6 months withstanding).

This sums up the Rutgers proponents perfectly. Don't look at their long term history or their most recent history but if you look at it from this arbitrary date to this equally arbitrary date, they are awesome and have gobs of potential!

Struggling businesses try that accounting trick all the time. They'll say things like "Look, I know that we have under-performed for a while now and that our first, second and fourth quarters of this year were also disappointing. However, we had a GREAT third quarter and if we can just find a way to replicate that more frequently, our possibilities are endless."

Occasionally, someone buys that logic. Most of the time, prudent people do not.

Yinzer, you have to admit that since 2001 we've been on a clear albeit mostly slow upward trajectory in Football. Wrestling has been on a clear quick upward trajectory for several years now. Women's basketball may be declining with CVS getting older. The other sports have remained largely stagnant, that I'll give you.

I do get sick of people s***ting on us like we're still going 2-10 or 3-9 every year in football. Its not all just potential we've shown we're trying hard to build something and do have some limited relatively early results to show for it.

(06-06-2013 12:59 PM)krup Wrote:  I think the Pitt v RU battling is silly because the real question isn't between those two but, instead should the ACC have added 4 (incl RU) while they had the chance.

They made two raids and still don't control the northeast/midatlantic geography. I see the ACC like the South at Gettysburg. They missed some easy, early opportunities to claim some ground which, once lost, they won't be able to get back to.

I see where you are coming from, but ultimately there are two building blocks (or cornerstones if you like) for the northeast I-95 corridor. They are Penn State and Notre Dame.

The BiG has had PSU for over two decades now and had been trying to add ND almost as long.

In terms of other programs in the Northeast (as defined as being New England, NY, PA, and NJ) the remaining list of schools that now comprise the "other favorites" in the area are (alpha) - Boston College, Connecticut, Miami, Michigan, Ohio State, Rutgers, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse.

Had the ACC added 4 in 2011 (let's say Pitt, Rutgers, SU, and UConn) they would still be without either foundation stone.

So, imho, the ACC took a calculated risk in taking Pitt and SU, hoped it would be enough to get ND on board as a full member while also possibly entice PSU to change its mind. Leaving Rutgers and UConn off the table probably seemed to them to be a "safe bet", perhaps not realizing that Maryland would ever leave.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-06-2013 01:45 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 01:34 PM)HP-TBDPITL Wrote:  ....and it had righted its ship lately (the last 6 months withstanding).

This sums up the Rutgers proponents perfectly. Don't look at their long term history or their most recent history but if you look at it from this arbitrary date to this equally arbitrary date, they are awesome and have gobs of potential!

Struggling businesses try that accounting trick all the time. They'll say things like "Look, I know that we have under-performed for a while now and that our first, second and fourth quarters of this year were also disappointing. However, we had a GREAT third quarter and if we can just find a way to replicate that more frequently, our possibilities are endless."

Occasionally, someone buys that logic. Most of the time, prudent people do not.

Our most recent history is a share of the conference title and 7 bowls in the last 8 years. Yeah, dont look at out recent history, said no Rutgers fan ever.

Hey i heard you guys brought HUNDREDS of fans to your last few bowls. Thats a solid fan base.

Okay, I think we've had about enough of this. Let's end it now...