(12-19-2013 04:58 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Since I'm not sure how the GOR really works or will work, maybe some of you that do can enlighten me.

Say that Kansas is invited to the B1G and they accept. Does Kansas actually owe future money to the Big 12 that they receive from the B1G?

Rather its that (most of) Kansas's home game media rights already belong to the Big12, independent of whether Kansas remains in the Big12.

When you have two conflicting media rights, the one granted first is normally the valid one, so the BigTen could include Kansas in their conference ... but their broadcaster doesn't get the rights to Kansas home games.

So the GOR doesn't involve any transfer of money, it involves locking down the media rights that conferences are hoping to add when they a new school.

(12-19-2013 10:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 02:44 PM)Badger Wrote:  How will the two new Big Ten teams fare? Let's assume the worst...that Rutgers and Maryland will descend to the bottom of the Big Ten and share space with the already numerous bottom feeders. This is the potential "scheduling monster" Delany has created for the league.

Such a "dilution" of the this oft maligned league is the last thing it needed, as shown in this fine article by Ty Duffy: http://thebiglead.com/2013/12/18/there-i...re-awful/.

Ticket sales and TV viewership are at stake. Should Delany throw all his chips in now and get, say, a Texas, to add some badly needed scheduling "pop!" to the bland Big Ten team schedules? Could a 15 team conference work?

Why the B1G passed up Missouri to take Rutgers (Rutgers!?) and Maryland escapes me. The article is correct. The B1G committed an own goal.

My gut tells me all these games that Virginia Tech is scheduling with Big Ten schools is no accident. A prelude to a change made already by Delany and Virginia Tech brass?? I like Virginia Tech as an add with Kansas/Kansas State/OU.

(12-20-2013 12:15 AM)Badger Wrote:   My gut tells me all these games that Virginia Tech is scheduling with Big Ten schools is no accident. A prelude to a change made already by Delany and Virginia Tech brass?? I like Virginia Tech as an add with Kansas/Kansas State/OU.

Perhaps, but especially with Wisconsin, I've noticed that ADs have a bit of an independent streak in them when it comes to scheduling (Alvarez said something like 'hell yes we'll schedule ND').

They'll listen to what Delany has to say, but ultimately they do what they feel is best for their school, and IMHO, it's hard to make conclusions from the Virginia Tech scheduling.

This is a good read on bowl scheduling:
http://mweb.cbssports.com/ncaaf/writer/j...-selection

(12-20-2013 12:15 AM)Badger Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 10:31 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(12-18-2013 02:44 PM)Badger Wrote:  How will the two new Big Ten teams fare? Let's assume the worst...that Rutgers and Maryland will descend to the bottom of the Big Ten and share space with the already numerous bottom feeders. This is the potential "scheduling monster" Delany has created for the league.

Such a "dilution" of the this oft maligned league is the last thing it needed, as shown in this fine article by Ty Duffy: http://thebiglead.com/2013/12/18/there-i...re-awful/.

Ticket sales and TV viewership are at stake. Should Delany throw all his chips in now and get, say, a Texas, to add some badly needed scheduling "pop!" to the bland Big Ten team schedules? Could a 15 team conference work?

Why the B1G passed up Missouri to take Rutgers (Rutgers!?) and Maryland escapes me. The article is correct. The B1G committed an own goal.

My gut tells me all these games that Virginia Tech is scheduling with Big Ten schools is no accident. A prelude to a change made already by Delany and Virginia Tech brass?? I like Virginia Tech as an add with Kansas/Kansas State/OU.

Unless the B1G backs off the AAU membership requirement, OU, K-State and VPI have zero chance of getting into the conference. KU is an AAU member so that could fly if they found the right partner(s).

(12-19-2013 11:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 04:58 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Since I'm not sure how the GOR really works or will work, maybe some of you that do can enlighten me.

Say that Kansas is invited to the B1G and they accept. Does Kansas actually owe future money to the Big 12 that they receive from the B1G?

Rather its that (most of) Kansas's home game media rights already belong to the Big12, independent of whether Kansas remains in the Big12.

When you have two conflicting media rights, the one granted first is normally the valid one, so the BigTen could include Kansas in their conference ... but their broadcaster doesn't get the rights to Kansas home games.

So the GOR doesn't involve any transfer of money, it involves locking down the media rights that conferences are hoping to add when they a new school.

Ok that's understandable. It seems like that would allow a little room for manuevering by the school departing the Big 12. Not much but a little since, and correct me if I'm wrong, Big 12 schools own their 3rd tier rights. So Kansas, the example here, could use that 3rd tier, however that's defined, as a property it could sell to the BTN or any other network or outlet that wanted it and could keep that money. Yes, no, maybe?

(12-20-2013 10:39 AM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 11:32 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(12-19-2013 04:58 PM)MinerInWisconsin Wrote:  Since I'm not sure how the GOR really works or will work, maybe some of you that do can enlighten me.

Say that Kansas is invited to the B1G and they accept. Does Kansas actually owe future money to the Big 12 that they receive from the B1G?

Rather its that (most of) Kansas's home game media rights already belong to the Big12, independent of whether Kansas remains in the Big12.

When you have two conflicting media rights, the one granted first is normally the valid one, so the BigTen could include Kansas in their conference ... but their broadcaster doesn't get the rights to Kansas home games.

So the GOR doesn't involve any transfer of money, it involves locking down the media rights that conferences are hoping to add when they a new school.

Ok that's understandable. It seems like that would allow a little room for manuevering by the school departing the Big 12. Not much but a little since, and correct me if I'm wrong, Big 12 schools own their 3rd tier rights. So Kansas, the example here, could use that 3rd tier, however that's defined, as a property it could sell to the BTN or any other network or outlet that wanted it and could keep that money. Yes, no, maybe?

KU sold their Tier3 rights to IMG. In turn, IMG has made deals with ESPN and Time Warner Cable for broadcast and internet distribution of content, as well as creation of bonus programming.

Of course, that applies to KU home games. If they were to join the B1G their road games would still be available for the BTN. That would raise further interest for the BTN in KC (although due to a respectable amount of Nebraska fans, that's already available here on various cable tiers), and also make it a little more attractive elsewhere during the winter months since we'd be an attractive hoops opponent.

i could see the big 10 add va tech. IT would go against the philosophy of only one add per state, which i think is pretty dumb philosophy, but to get UVA the big 10 might need to also add va tech. A 16 team setup with UVA and Va tech works pretty good.

pod 1: uva, va tech, rutgers, maryland
pod 2:Nw, ILL, UM, OSU
pod 3: IU, Pur, MSU, PSU
pod 4: wis, min, iow, neb

Of course, the big 10 might want to get bigger since the acc prime targets would most likely want to flee.

I dont really see anything breaking up the ACC core of UVA/VT/UNC/NCSU/DU/WF

All the other teams have other leagues they'd rather be in (B1G or SEC) but those 6 dont

Delaney had shot at Missouri & Syracuse, ended up with Nebraska & Maryland.
He certainly does not know how to play this game

(12-20-2013 01:09 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Delaney had shot at Missouri & Syracuse, ended up with Nebraska & Maryland.
He certainly does not know how to play this game

Don't you mean Rutgers and Maryland?

(12-20-2013 11:27 AM)bluesox Wrote:  i could see the big 10 add va tech. IT would go against the philosophy of only one add per state, which i think is pretty dumb philosophy, but to get UVA the big 10 might need to also add va tech. A 16 team setup with UVA and Va tech works pretty good.

pod 1: uva, va tech, rutgers, maryland
pod 2:Nw, ILL, UM, OSU
pod 3: IU, Pur, MSU, PSU
pod 4: wis, min, iow, neb

Of course, the big 10 might want to get bigger since the acc prime targets would most likely want to flee.

I do like the pod arrangement here. The pods show a good balance for each group of teams. Any pod being fairly equally the same in terms of strength. Splitting up UM and MSU...good move.

(12-20-2013 01:09 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Delaney had shot at Missouri & Syracuse, ended up with Nebraska & Maryland.
He certainly does not know how to play this game

Hindsight is 20/20. I think the hesitation from both the SEC and Big 10 to double up in existing markets with premier programs is just delaying things by a decade or two.

(12-20-2013 01:34 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:09 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Delaney had shot at Missouri & Syracuse, ended up with Nebraska & Maryland.
He certainly does not know how to play this game

Hindsight is 20/20. I think the hesitation from both the SEC and Big 10 to double up in existing markets with premier programs is just delaying things by a decade or two.

The Big 10 and SEC are conferences that just aren't going to add those for which the networks refuse to pay. I don't really blame Delany or Slive.

(12-18-2013 04:52 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  WARNING!!

Sarcasm Ahead!

Here ya go! Western B1G breaks off to join forces with the original B12 members after realignment to form the Great Plains Athletic Conference:

Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa
Iowa State
Nebraska
Illinois
Northwestern

Kansas
Kansas State
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Texas Tech
Baylor

TCU and WVU told "its not you, it's me, and its just not working out."

Problem solved!

Hate to say it but that's not bad. Iowa, NW, Illinois, and Minn don't move my Texan needle much now but such a radical change in scenery and exposure to Texas recruits could make those schools more interesting/competitive in the future under that scenario. Of course, it will take many years or decades for games between former B1G/B12 members to matter to their respective fan bases. Ask Hog fans. Arky has been in the SEC for >20 years but still has no meaningful SEC rival.

Ditching TCU is a no-brainer but I'd also favor keeping WVU rather than Baylor unless fan support and tv ratings clearly show Baylor is more valuable than WVU to the conference.

(12-20-2013 01:09 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Delaney had shot at Missouri & Syracuse, ended up with Nebraska & Maryland.
He certainly does not know how to play this game

(12-20-2013 01:34 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:09 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Delaney had shot at Missouri & Syracuse, ended up with Nebraska & Maryland.
He certainly does not know how to play this game

Hindsight is 20/20. I think the hesitation from both the SEC and Big 10 to double up in existing markets with premier programs is just delaying things by a decade or two.

Come on bbb, don't give this guy and this simple post as much consideration as you just gave him with your response.

Delany is playing a much different game than what folks like that poster understand. For a guy like that to even begin to think he can judge Delany and all the aspects that Big Ten Presidents take into account when choosing who they wish to partner with, well that just shows how simple minded he is.

We all know why Nebraska was chosen over Missouri. That isn't a shot at Missouri, just a matter of what the Big Ten needed at the time.

We all know why the likes of Maryland was chosen over the likes of Syracuse. Once again, that shouldn't even have to be explained to someone. It is laughable that this Temple fan needs to have these simple concepts explained to him.

And to you BBB? Hindsight? Maryland and Rutgers havn't even spent a single day in the Big Ten yet. Hindsight? We don't need to give credence to dumb comments when they are posted BBB and his comment was dumb, plain and simple. We can admit that.

(12-20-2013 08:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:34 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:09 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Delaney had shot at Missouri & Syracuse, ended up with Nebraska & Maryland.
He certainly does not know how to play this game

Hindsight is 20/20. I think the hesitation from both the SEC and Big 10 to double up in existing markets with premier programs is just delaying things by a decade or two.

Come on bbb, don't give this guy and this simple post as much consideration as you just gave him with your response.

Delany is playing a much different game than what folks like that poster understand. For a guy like that to even begin to think he can judge Delany and all the aspects that Big Ten Presidents take into account when choosing who they wish to partner with, well that just shows how simple minded he is.

We all know why Nebraska was chosen over Missouri. That isn't a shot at Missouri, just a matter of what the Big Ten needed at the time.

We all know why the likes of Maryland was chosen over the likes of Syracuse. Once again, that shouldn't even have to be explained to someone. It is laughable that this Temple fan needs to have these simple concepts explained to him.

And to you BBB? Hindsight? Maryland and Rutgers havn't even spent a single day in the Big Ten yet. Hindsight? We don't need to give credence to dumb comments when they are posted BBB and his comment was dumb, plain and simple. We can admit that.

The Big 10 needs more Nebraska over Missouri type thinking (although Mizzou is certainly turning out to be a diamond in the rough for the SEC), but I have my doubts as to whether it comes to fruition. Oklahoma should be a Big 10 target, but academics might prevent it.

As far as Maryland versus Syracuse I'd say their football is a wash, and that the Syracuse basketball product is superior. But since basketball value is but a fraction of football value it is hard to call one significantly better than the other.

What we need are better ideas for solutions to the issues that each conference faces. We'll see.

But to the point if we are judging the Big 10 by lack of football schools Nebraska was the better pick from a historical perspective and a profitability perspective. And criticize the Big 10 for Rutgers if you like, but the Scarlet Knights have potential and before realignment is over all conferences will have a project or two for an addition. Rutgers is a pretty darn good project to have.

(12-20-2013 09:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 08:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:34 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(12-20-2013 01:09 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Delaney had shot at Missouri & Syracuse, ended up with Nebraska & Maryland.
He certainly does not know how to play this game

Hindsight is 20/20. I think the hesitation from both the SEC and Big 10 to double up in existing markets with premier programs is just delaying things by a decade or two.

Come on bbb, don't give this guy and this simple post as much consideration as you just gave him with your response.

Delany is playing a much different game than what folks like that poster understand. For a guy like that to even begin to think he can judge Delany and all the aspects that Big Ten Presidents take into account when choosing who they wish to partner with, well that just shows how simple minded he is.

We all know why Nebraska was chosen over Missouri. That isn't a shot at Missouri, just a matter of what the Big Ten needed at the time.

We all know why the likes of Maryland was chosen over the likes of Syracuse. Once again, that shouldn't even have to be explained to someone. It is laughable that this Temple fan needs to have these simple concepts explained to him.

And to you BBB? Hindsight? Maryland and Rutgers havn't even spent a single day in the Big Ten yet. Hindsight? We don't need to give credence to dumb comments when they are posted BBB and his comment was dumb, plain and simple. We can admit that.

The Big 10 needs more Nebraska over Missouri type thinking (although Mizzou is certainly turning out to be a diamond in the rough for the SEC), but I have my doubts as to whether it comes to fruition. Oklahoma should be a Big 10 target, but academics might prevent it.

As far as Maryland versus Syracuse I'd say their football is a wash, and that the Syracuse basketball product is superior. But since basketball value is but a fraction of football value it is hard to call one significantly better than the other.

What we need are better ideas for solutions to the issues that each conference faces. We'll see.

But to the point if we are judging the Big 10 by lack of football schools Nebraska was the better pick from a historical perspective and a profitability perspective. And criticize the Big 10 for Rutgers if you like, but the Scarlet Knights have potential and before realignment is over all conferences will have a project or two for an addition. Rutgers is a pretty darn good project to have.

Missouri makes me smile. They have done a fine job there in proving themselves in the SEC. They may have gotten turned down by The Big Ten but they are having the last laugh in that regard. Certainly some of the academia there would still likely prefer The Big Ten but they most definitely feel some pride at how Missouri has fared on the football field in the SEC where they were given very little chance to succeed.

The Nebraska pick was all about maximizing the marketability of the Big Ten Championship game. Not going to go into specifics on all the many variables that go into coming to the 20 million mark but let's remember that Missouri was in no position to worry about losing it's AAU status. It was already known within the Circle that Nebraska was losing theirs and yet Nebraska was chosen. To think that The Big Ten is only about choosing the better Academic school? Nah, we both know that is window dressing JR.

Maryland was a market FUTURE pick. The conference wanted eastern expansion into the Beltway. I think the Maryland/Rutgers pick may very well pan out to be a genius move in the future but I cant judge that to be the case yet. Certainly folks who want to see Delany fall on his face on this one are already wanting to declare it a failed move despite the fact that they have NOTHING to base that statement on.

Rutgers is a great football project and Maryland should be a boost to Big Ten basketball in the future. Maryland football did better this year than expected and that IS good news for them. We will see how Rutgers basketball pans out but once again....they have a lot of potential when you have that many potential recruits in your back yard. Rutgers basketball history doesn't necessarily define Rutgers basketball future in the Big Ten.


I like Syracuse, I like them a lot. Personally I think they would be great in the Big Ten. To compare them though to either Maryland or Rutgers? The Big Ten is land grant, State Institutions first and foremost. Yes, the conference has Northwestern but they are the obvious exception to the rule.

(12-20-2013 09:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And criticize the Big 10 for Rutgers if you like, but the Scarlet Knights have potential and before realignment is over all conferences will have a project or two for an addition. Rutgers is a pretty darn good project to have.

And successful building project or not, the point remains that b/r's top ten recruiting states (2014 5 star/4 star):

First tier:
1. Florida (3/38)
2. Texas (3/39)
3. California (4/36)
4. Georgia (3/33)

Second tier:
5. Louisiana (4/16)
6. Virginia (3/15)
7. Alabama (1/15)
8. Ohio (1/16)
9. North Carolina (1/13)
10. New Jersey (1/12)

... if the Big Ten were able to get its first preference expansion of UVA & UNC, it would move from being in one 2nd tier recruiting state to being in four. And its not hard to see why GTech kept floating around when people thought another big expansion move was imminent, despite the fact that GTech would be on an island.

(12-20-2013 08:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  We all know why Nebraska was chosen over Missouri.

We certainly do. Delany and the the BiG presidents were pissed that Missouri governor Jay Nixon kept running his big mouth and blew their vaunted concept of operating in secret. Missouri had to be punished by making them wait a couple of years for an invitation. Elwood G. Gee even admitted that the B1G thought that Mizzou had no where else to go. So, now they have Maryland.