Here are some of their take...oh yeah...no B1G but TCU was a huge winner....lol

College Football's Top 15 Winners From Conference Realignment

1. Texas A&M
The move to the SEC was supposed to be difficult. After all, Texas A&M had a new coaching staff, quarterback and a conference to learn. However, the Aggies made an immediate splash, winning double-digit games for the first time since 1998 and produced a Heisman winner in Johnny Manziel. While realignment isn’t just about what happened last year, Texas A&M can win big in the SEC. The program has excellent resources and can use its SEC leverage to recruit against its in-state brethren. The Aggies will have their share of ups and downs in the SEC in the future, but with coach Kevin Sumlin on the sidelines, the program is well-positioned to succeed in the upcoming seasons.

2. Louisville
There wasn’t much that went wrong for Louisville’s football program last season. The Cardinals shared the Big East title, won the Sugar Bowl over Florida, managed to keep coach Charlie Strong in Louisville despite multiple overtures from the SEC, and were invited to join the ACC in 2014. The Cardinals have one of the best all-around athletic programs in the nation and will immediately be a factor in the ACC. And with 14 returning starters from last year’s 11-2 team, Louisville will have a chance to push for the national title in its final season in the Big East/American Athletic Conference.

3. Rutgers
The Scarlet Knights are one of the biggest winners in conference realignment. Sure, competing in the Big Ten will be a step up in competition, but Rutgers has made a significant step up on the conference hierarchy ladder. The Scarlet Knights have jumped from the sixth- or seventh-best conference in college football to arguably one of the top three. Moving to the Big Ten also will increase exposure and the ability to recruit for Rutgers, especially with the added games on the Big Ten Network.

5. SEC
The SEC didn’t expand just to expand. Instead, the conference landed two programs in new attractive television markets, which should help the SEC when it comes time to launch its conference network in 2014. Although realignment isn’t about success in one season, the additions of Texas A&M and Missouri will pay dividends. The Aggies bring a chunk of the Texas market – something the SEC wanted to tap into – and a program capable of consistently ranking among the top 10-15 teams in the nation. The Tigers will find life a little tougher in the SEC than the Big 12, but the program will benefit from the extra money. And once Missouri has a chance to find its footing in the SEC, the Tigers should be a consistent bowl team. In the SEC’s case, the rich are getting a little richer.

6. Big 12
At one point during college football’s realignment craze, there was some thought the Big 12 would go extinct. Instead, the conference has rebounded and appears healthy for the next 10-15 years, largely thanks to the grant of rights for each team’s television deal. Losing Nebraska and Texas A&M was a tough blow to the Big 12, but the additions of West Virginia and TCU helped to soften the blow. New commissioner Bob Bowlsby seems to be doing a good job of keeping the peace within the conference, and barring any unforeseen issues arising, the Big 12 should be secure for the immediate future. The only question? 10 or 12? Will the Big 12 have to expand once again? If the conference has to add, which programs get the call to be No. 11 and No. 12?

7. Notre Dame
Much like their Independent brethren (BYU), the Fighting Irish are a winner in the latest round of expansion. There was some thought Notre Dame would be forced to join a conference, but the Fighting Irish were able to remain Independent and upgraded with a partnership with the ACC. Notre Dame also struck an agreement with the Orange Bowl, and access to other postseason games should be better in the partnership with the ACC. Who knows, in 50 years, maybe the Fighting Irish will have to join a conference. However, it’s pretty clear – for now – that Notre Dame’s place as an Independent is secure for the foreseeable future.

8. ACC
The ACC is losing Maryland to the Big Ten, but the additions of Pittsburgh, Syracuse and Louisville are enough to keep this conference in the winner category. The conference also was able to stave off any additional departures – at least for the foreseeable future – as the teams have signed a grant of rights deal, which makes it very difficult for any program to leave. The ACC is gaining one of the top college programs in the nation in Louisville, and two members to bolster its presence on the Eastern side of the United States. Pittsburgh is on the right track under second-year coach Paul Chryst, and Syracuse made strides under former coach Doug Marrone. The ACC needs both programs to continue making progress to bolster the conference’s overall depth. And of course, the ACC landed a significant partnership with Notre Dame, which will help improve each team’s non-conference schedule, along with making the conference more attractive for bowl partners.

http://www.athlonsports.com/college-foot...ealignment

I would disagree with having the Big 12 ranked ahead of the ACC on this list. They lost 4 very strong schools. They lost 2 large markets in Colorado and Missouri, lost a major national brand in Nebraska, and allowed the SEC into their core home recruiting territory and TV market with TAMU. (Indeed, the writer is a bit contradictory in calling the SEC a winner for stealing Missouri and TAMU, but not reflecting this as a huge loss to the B12). TCU and WVU are great programs, but they bring virtually no new TV homes and add one travel headache. The Big 12 did improve their TV deals, but this is solely because their deals expired just as the market was taking off (good for them, but not the result of realignment).

The Big 12 is a great conference and will undoubtedly continue to be very successful, but it is hard to call them winners in realignment. They are survivors.

By comparison, the ACC was locked into an undervalued TV contract for an extended period. The ACC used expansion to improve their TV deals from $13 million/year/school to over $20 million/year/school while locked into a really bad deal. They have substantially improved the competitiveness of their football product and basketball product. They have expanded their TV footprint into the northeast and midwest. Finally, despite being targetted, they managed to avoid being raided, losing only one school. They used the realignment process to get better, both financially and competitively. That is winning.

I can see the Big XII as a winner & their ranking for one simple reason...even with the defections they still have a great media deal and a very impressive Bowl Lineup.

They are truly an example of turning lemons into lemonade...

(07-01-2013 02:36 PM)orangefan Wrote:  I would disagree with having the Big 12 ranked ahead of the ACC on this list. They lost 4 very strong schools. They lost 2 large markets in Colorado and Missouri, lost a major national brand in Nebraska, and allowed the SEC into their core home recruiting territory and TV market with TAMU. (Indeed, the writer is a bit contradictory in calling the SEC a winner for stealing Missouri and TAMU, but not reflecting this as a huge loss to the B12). TCU and WVU are great programs, but they bring virtually no new TV homes and add one travel headache. The Big 12 did improve their TV deals, but this is solely because their deals expired just as the market was taking off (good for them, but not the result of realignment).

The Big 12 is a great conference and will undoubtedly continue to be very successful, but it is hard to call them winners in realignment. They are survivors.

By comparison, the ACC was locked into an undervalued TV contract for an extended period. The ACC used expansion to improve their TV deals from $13 million/year/school to over $20 million/year/school while locked into a really bad deal. They have substantially improved the competitiveness of their football product and basketball product. They have expanded their TV footprint into the northeast and midwest. Finally, despite being targetted, they managed to avoid being raided, losing only one school. They used the realignment process to get better, both financially and competitively. That is winning.

I tend to disagree with your analysis, which isn't surprising...

IMO the B12 gained access to the Pittsburgh, Cleveland, DC, and Baltimore audience with WVU's addition, giving the B12 much more visibility in the east than they would have had previously. Access to the market is primary. Football fans will watch. Even the fans of WVU's former rivals will split into groups that root for WVU against the B12 and those who root for WVU to lose to everyone in the B12. It's inevitable...

WVU and the B12 are doing just fine. I'm glad everyone ended up roses. It's just a pity it led to 3 of the P5 conferences divvying up the eastern football powers...

to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

How is Rutgers not No. 1? They went from the struggling for its very life AAC to the ultra-wealthy B1G. And perhaps most remarkably, they did it without actually ever winning anything or really ever being any good. That is unbelievable! Rutgers is the undisputed winners of realignment and it is not even close.

(07-01-2013 03:58 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  How is Rutgers not No. 1? They went from the struggling for its very life AAC to the ultra-wealthy B1G. And perhaps most remarkably, they did it without actually ever winning anything or really ever being any good. That is unbelievable! Rutgers is the undisputed winners of realignment and it is not even close.

Agree completely

(07-01-2013 03:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

The ACC won't be making as much money per school as the Big 12 is. They just won't. I mean, in the 6 years where the ACC has to play SEC/Big Ten team in the Orange Bowl, they will be getting 12.5 million dollars less than the Big 12. So Big 12 90 million, ACC 77.5 million. Per school that's Big 12 9 million, ACC 5.5 million. The ACC won't be THAT far ahead of the Big 12 to make up the difference in basketball. The ACC may end of the day make the same amount of money as the Big 12(or even slightly more)- but they have 4.5 more mouths to feed. HUGE difference... ACC would need to make 100+ million more dollars than the Big 12 to get more money per school. A good 75-80 million would be coming from TV- from having more schools getting the same amount. The ACC isn't getting 20-25 million more per year off of basketball- and even so, would be losing in 6/12 years 12.5 million due to SEC/Big Ten in Orange Bowl.

(07-01-2013 03:58 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  How is Rutgers not No. 1? They went from the struggling for its very life AAC to the ultra-wealthy B1G. And perhaps most remarkably, they did it without actually ever winning anything or really ever being any good. That is unbelievable! Rutgers is the undisputed winners of realignment and it is not even close.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
THIS!!!!!!!!

(07-01-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

The ACC won't be making as much money per school as the Big 12 is. They just won't. I mean, in the 6 years where the ACC has to play SEC/Big Ten team in the Orange Bowl, they will be getting 12.5 million dollars less than the Big 12. So Big 12 90 million, ACC 77.5 million. Per school that's Big 12 9 million, ACC 5.5 million. The ACC won't be THAT far ahead of the Big 12 to make up the difference in basketball. The ACC may end of the day make the same amount of money as the Big 12(or even slightly more)- but they have 4.5 more mouths to feed. HUGE difference... ACC would need to make 100+ million more dollars than the Big 12 to get more money per school. A good 75-80 million would be coming from TV- from having more schools getting the same amount. The ACC isn't getting 20-25 million more per year off of basketball- and even so, would be losing in 6/12 years 12.5 million due to SEC/Big Ten in Orange Bowl.

The point is @ this point it doesn't really matter...and really the story hasn't even been completed...I have said from the beginning both leagues are pretty much dead even...or to put it another way nobody is leaving the ACC for the Big XII & vise versa...in the end both leagues and everyone @ the table including those two leagues are laughing all the way to the bank...

(07-01-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

The ACC won't be making as much money per school as the Big 12 is. They just won't. I mean, in the 6 years where the ACC has to play SEC/Big Ten team in the Orange Bowl, they will be getting 12.5 million dollars less than the Big 12. So Big 12 90 million, ACC 77.5 million. Per school that's Big 12 9 million, ACC 5.5 million. The ACC won't be THAT far ahead of the Big 12 to make up the difference in basketball. The ACC may end of the day make the same amount of money as the Big 12(or even slightly more)- but they have 4.5 more mouths to feed. HUGE difference... ACC would need to make 100+ million more dollars than the Big 12 to get more money per school. A good 75-80 million would be coming from TV- from having more schools getting the same amount. The ACC isn't getting 20-25 million more per year off of basketball- and even so, would be losing in 6/12 years 12.5 million due to SEC/Big Ten in Orange Bowl.

Don't get me wrong, the Big 12 is doing great. Their new TV contracts are tremendous, as is their deal with the Sugar Bowl. My point is that this not as a result of realignment, it is in spite of realignment. Beebe and Neinas pulled a pair of rabbits out the hat to avoid being annihilated by realignment.

Although the the ACC TV Orange Bowl deals are admittedly not as good at the Big 12's comparable deals, they used realignment to improve their deals dramatically, particularly the TV deal. This is why they are a big winner in realignment.

(07-01-2013 03:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

Right, because Nebraska was a horrible grab. They denied Missouri to take Nebraska instead but the SEC is the one that didn't just expand for the sake of expanding? They took a school that the Big Ten denied.

You Louisville clowns and your cheerleading. Of course the Big Ten didn't get a statement. The Big Ten didn't expand with simply current athletic prowess in mind. Clown writers like this guy are too simple in the mind to understand such. They only write on what they see in the present. Doing anything else would get them too much criticism from their fellow simpletons and they couldnt stand losing any hits!



The Big Ten doesn't need you or him thinking their expansion was a good one. They have been writing the rules of expansion and Networks from the very beginning. Penn State and Nebraska Brands and then the Beltway and New Jersey Markets. Yeah...what a horrible expansion.

(07-01-2013 04:35 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 04:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

The ACC won't be making as much money per school as the Big 12 is. They just won't. I mean, in the 6 years where the ACC has to play SEC/Big Ten team in the Orange Bowl, they will be getting 12.5 million dollars less than the Big 12. So Big 12 90 million, ACC 77.5 million. Per school that's Big 12 9 million, ACC 5.5 million. The ACC won't be THAT far ahead of the Big 12 to make up the difference in basketball. The ACC may end of the day make the same amount of money as the Big 12(or even slightly more)- but they have 4.5 more mouths to feed. HUGE difference... ACC would need to make 100+ million more dollars than the Big 12 to get more money per school. A good 75-80 million would be coming from TV- from having more schools getting the same amount. The ACC isn't getting 20-25 million more per year off of basketball- and even so, would be losing in 6/12 years 12.5 million due to SEC/Big Ten in Orange Bowl.

Don't get me wrong, the Big 12 is doing great. Their new TV contracts are tremendous, as is their deal with the Sugar Bowl. My point is that this not as a result of realignment, it is in spite of realignment. Beebe and Neinas pulled a pair of rabbits out the hat to avoid being annihilated by realignment.

Although the the ACC TV Orange Bowl deals are admittedly not as good at the Big 12's comparable deals, they used realignment to improve their deals dramatically, particularly the TV deal. This is why they are a big winner in realignment.

Yup...in the end all 5 got huge increases in revenue...some more then others but all 5 have all the $$$ & exposure...some even have their own TV Networks, Networks coming or Networks in the planning stage so they get even more exposure from that as well...so going forward just about every "important" Post Season Football game will be a matchup of P5 schools and apparently the vast majority of Regular Season games as well.

As much as it pains me to say, Xavier belongs on this list.

(07-01-2013 04:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

Right, because Nebraska was a horrible grab. They denied Missouri to take Nebraska instead but the SEC is the one that didn't just expand for the sake of expanding? They took a school that the Big Ten denied.

You Louisville clowns and your cheerleading. Of course the Big Ten didn't get a statement. The Big Ten didn't expand with simply current athletic prowess in mind. Clown writers like this guy are too simple in the mind to understand such. They only write on what they see in the present. Doing anything else would get them too much criticism from their fellow simpletons and they couldnt stand losing any hits!



The Big Ten doesn't need you or him thinking their expansion was a good one. They have been writing the rules of expansion and Networks from the very beginning. Penn State and Nebraska Brands and then the Beltway and New Jersey Markets. Yeah...what a horrible expansion.

Dude...you problem is not with Louisville but with Athlon...they are the ones that you should point you "wrath" @...myself, just laughing @ your hissy fit...and FTR...i said it "struck" me they were not considered a winner.......

Said it before: only two schools fundamentally changed their positions in college football, Rutgers and A&M. Rutgers went from marginal BCS to the absolute top of the Cartel, and A&M permanently shed that burnt orange anchor.

Louisville and TCU deserve special mention for finding relatively solid spots in the Cartel. Utah I guess made a technically greater leap than Rutgers--going from non-BCS to the number three league, and it's a very stable number three--but they were a good program and getting into the Pac just doesn't feel like hitting the lottery like getting into the B1G does. Everybody else--Pitt, Cuse, Colorado, Nebraska, WVU--good on them for staying in the Cartel, or getting a better deal or whatever, but their positions were not changed all that much relative to where they were.

I guess I forgot Missouri? They really changed their position, but it doesn't feel like a drastic change for whatever reason.

(07-01-2013 04:53 PM)justinslot Wrote:  Said it before: only two schools fundamentally changed their positions in college football, Rutgers and A&M. Rutgers went from marginal BCS to the absolute top of the Cartel, and A&M permanently shed that burnt orange anchor.

Louisville and TCU deserves special mention for finding relatively solid spots in the Cartel. Utah I guess made a technically greater leap than Rutgers--going from non-BCS to the number three league, and it's a very stable number three--but they were a good program and getting into the Pac just doesn't feel like hitting the lottery like getting into the B1G does. Everybody else--Pitt, Cuse, Colorado, Nebraska, WVU--good on them for staying in the Cartel, or getting a better deal or whatever, but their positions were not changed all that much relative to where they were.

I guess I forgot Missouri? They really changed their position, but it doesn't feel like a drastic change for whatever reason.

No...I would put TCU above Louisville for the simple reason they went from Non AQ to Power 5...Louisville @ least is/was coming from a AQ League when they caught the last lifeboat.

I admire TCU, they earned their way and more importantly they are in my mind back home in the Big XII.

(07-01-2013 04:44 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 04:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

Right, because Nebraska was a horrible grab. They denied Missouri to take Nebraska instead but the SEC is the one that didn't just expand for the sake of expanding? They took a school that the Big Ten denied.

You Louisville clowns and your cheerleading. Of course the Big Ten didn't get a statement. The Big Ten didn't expand with simply current athletic prowess in mind. Clown writers like this guy are too simple in the mind to understand such. They only write on what they see in the present. Doing anything else would get them too much criticism from their fellow simpletons and they couldnt stand losing any hits!



The Big Ten doesn't need you or him thinking their expansion was a good one. They have been writing the rules of expansion and Networks from the very beginning. Penn State and Nebraska Brands and then the Beltway and New Jersey Markets. Yeah...what a horrible expansion.

Dude...you problem is not with Louisville but with Athlon...they are the ones that you should point you "wrath" @...myself, just laughing @ your hissy fit...and FTR...i said it "struck" me they were not considered a winner.......

Oh, right...hissy fit. Folks like yourself talk **** and you cheer each other like a bunch of goons but someone else picks out your post and responds to it and he is throwing a hissy fit?

So how did it "Strike" you then?

(07-01-2013 05:06 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 04:44 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 04:39 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:20 PM)Maize Wrote:  

(07-01-2013 03:14 PM)stever20 Wrote:  to me, the Big 12 shouldn't be a winner but with how everything has gone, they are. They will get the same amount of money as the ACC in some years, and in the other years, they will be getting 12.5 million more dollars than the ACC. Then they have to split with only 10 compared to 14. Also they get the spot opposite the SEC in the Sugar Bowl which is huge. The ACC is still the clear #5 conference out there. They maintained that.

So get'n the SEC #3 in the Sugar Bowl put the ACC clearly @ #5 while @ the same time the ACC will get the #4 SEC or #2 B1G/ND and in the end with all revenue accounted for especially basketball revenue part of the total mix will make the same amount of $$$ as the Big XII. Ok, if you say so.

No, what struck me was the fact that the Conference with the "Big Stick" was not considered a winner...the B1G...

Right, because Nebraska was a horrible grab. They denied Missouri to take Nebraska instead but the SEC is the one that didn't just expand for the sake of expanding? They took a school that the Big Ten denied.

You Louisville clowns and your cheerleading. Of course the Big Ten didn't get a statement. The Big Ten didn't expand with simply current athletic prowess in mind. Clown writers like this guy are too simple in the mind to understand such. They only write on what they see in the present. Doing anything else would get them too much criticism from their fellow simpletons and they couldnt stand losing any hits!



The Big Ten doesn't need you or him thinking their expansion was a good one. They have been writing the rules of expansion and Networks from the very beginning. Penn State and Nebraska Brands and then the Beltway and New Jersey Markets. Yeah...what a horrible expansion.

Dude...you problem is not with Louisville but with Athlon...they are the ones that you should point you "wrath" @...myself, just laughing @ your hissy fit...and FTR...i said it "struck" me they were not considered a winner.......

Oh, right...hissy fit. Folks like yourself talk **** and you cheer each other like a bunch of goons but someone else picks out your post and responds to it and he is throwing a hissy fit?

So how did it "Strike" you then?

1...Internet grammar..."wuteva"
2...if you "actually" look @ what I was saying even with the nono ecom you should have realized I was actually in agreement...still just going to laugh @ u...