(02-01-2014 12:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Ok...

What I laugh about is how absolutely clueless you have continually demonstrated yourself to be, over a period of years now.

(02-01-2014 01:39 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 12:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Ok...

What I laugh about is how absolutely clueless you have continually demonstrated yourself to be, over a period of years now.

And yet...I have been more right in terms of realignment moves than anyone else. Guess you are just as susceptible to saying dumb things as the rest of the Cro-Magnon around here.

Feel free to return to your sensible self anytime now Paco. You don't do so well as an ACC stool pigeon.

(01-31-2014 07:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 11:07 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(01-31-2014 10:11 AM)ken d Wrote:  Let's be real about this, Maryland wasn't invited because of their research facilities. They weren't invited because of their athletic prowess. They weren't invited because of their fan support for athletics. They were invited for access to eyeballs that might make the BTN more profitable. And Maryland accepted for one reason only. They expect that they will get more dollars from the B1G than from the ACC. All the rest is posturing and conceit.

Based on what I've learned about Maryland and my gut feel for how the presidents and chancellors think, I disagree.

When you consider that Nebraska was a "win" for Delany and BTN on the athletic front, it does not surprise me at all that when Maryland hit the radar it was a quick-strike all-systems-go approval for Delany to reach out and get the deal done.

Maryland made the academic bosses grin from ear to ear. They are a powerhouse academic/research institution with credentials that made current athletic prowess a non factor. If they were located in any contiguous state and could be paired up with a complimentary institution to enter at the same time, they were going to get the offer even if not located in a prime media market. That fact that they are located in DC probably has the ACC kicking themselves (those that can look past the current state of football anyway).

There is a whole lot of imagined projections around here in regards to Maryland, Rutgers and The Big Ten.

The strange part is that much of it is coming from fans of schools that the ACC induced out of The Big East over nothing else but money yet now they want to point at The Big Ten and Maryland as if they are the worst ever? It's one school....one from the ACC and one from the Big East/AAC. The ACC is equally Big East and ACC now considering one of the original 8 is now gone. In fact, if you take into account Notre Dame, the ACC is more Big East than it is original ACC.

Yet somehow these folks want to project all that BS onto the situation of The Big Ten and Maryland. True Hypocrisy at work around here.

I just wanted to say, riffing off this and before brista probably closes this thread for living past its usefulness, how depressing it is to see fans of former Big East teams suddenly whole-hog for the ACC, a league ten or even five years ago we all knew (those of use who were in the BE) was crap at sports. It especially depresses me to see Syracuse people do it, you who anchored a power league and created one out of nothing and are now playing for the people who tore up your (relatively) happy home. The only proper emotions for Syracuse people now should be 1. a mixture of relief and resignation and 2. a thirst for vengeance upon the old ACC entities who reduced you to this state. (And of course Frodo. Miami was more the snake that the Big East knew was a snake that they let bite them anyway.)

But you won't have Maryland to serve that cold dish to! Because Maryland IN PART wanted off the realignment ride and wanted out of a league it barely recognized anymore and had an opportunity to get into the nation's most stable league. That is stable because it is almost entirely composed of Maryland-like institutions. And if you are still discounting the desire of Maryland to seek like-minded institutions and to leave an increasingly jumbled set of institutions as AT LEAST PARTIAL motivating factors--you, my message board friend, are a blind partisan.

(And Rutgers is obviously a B1G-like institution. Yes yes yes demographics blah blah blah blah blah. But: AAU member. Sole flagship for a state of 9 million. Colonial College. INVENTED THE SPORT OF FOOTBALL, which makes it both a legend and a leader.)

(02-01-2014 01:34 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I've been in academia and academic research for years. If you really want to know what your so called "AAU socialites" think, you can start by stopping the regurgitation of athletic conference press releases and similar PR firm hyperbole.

I've been careful here to try to avoid sounding like I'm just repeating the company line. Sometimes the hyperbole is fun for conversation or thrown out there mostly out of exasperation to counter hyperbole from those that really want to trash the Big Ten here above all else.

If Syracuse or a similar institution (granted, a short list) was near the top of the wish list, why would the Big Ten issue "press releases and similar PR firm hyperbole" that would require a bit of retraction if Syracuse became available. I don't see how all this AAU talk could be a product of the athletic departments and PR people and not really representative of what presidents and chancellors were thinking. Why go through the trouble and risk some embarrassment if it really didn't mean much (and with Nebraska I think there's wiggle room there)?

Clearly some smart person in the Big Ten thought through the AAU statements in the context of Syracuse, and they did it anyway. That is not consistent with your position unless you believe that Syracuse was never going to find there way to the Big Ten, in which case this becomes a very Notre Dame-like discussion.

(02-01-2014 05:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 01:39 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 12:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Ok...

What I laugh about is how absolutely clueless you have continually demonstrated yourself to be, over a period of years now.

And yet...I have been more right in terms of realignment moves than anyone else. Guess you are just as susceptible to saying dumb things as the rest of the Cro-Magnon around here.

Feel free to return to your sensible self anytime now Paco. You don't do so well as an ACC stool pigeon.

There is no 20 school Big Ten with intra-conference playoffs, He1nous. You were pretty much predicting that one and you were dead wrong there. You thought it was imminent. The ACC GOR messed you up there, out of the blue.

This pissing match between Big Ten and ACC folks is like a debate about religion or politics, nobody is going to be convinced by the other side and change their belief system.

(02-01-2014 07:10 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 01:34 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I've been in academia and academic research for years. If you really want to know what your so called "AAU socialites" think, you can start by stopping the regurgitation of athletic conference press releases and similar PR firm hyperbole.

I've been careful here to try to avoid sounding like I'm just repeating the company line. Sometimes the hyperbole is fun for conversation or thrown out there mostly out of exasperation to counter hyperbole from those that really want to trash the Big Ten here above all else.

If Syracuse or a similar institution (granted, a short list) was near the top of the wish list, why would the Big Ten issue "press releases and similar PR firm hyperbole" that would require a bit of retraction if Syracuse became available. I don't see how all this AAU talk could be a product of the athletic departments and PR people and not really representative of what presidents and chancellors were thinking. Why go through the trouble and risk some embarrassment if it really didn't mean much (and with Nebraska I think there's wiggle room there)?

Clearly some smart person in the Big Ten thought through the AAU statements in the context of Syracuse, and they did it anyway. That is not consistent with your position unless you believe that Syracuse was never going to find there way to the Big Ten, in which case this becomes a very Notre Dame-like discussion.

"I don't see how all this AAU talk could be a product of the athletic departments and PR people and not really representative of what presidents and chancellors were thinking."
It's a dumb selling point. The fact that SU doesn't have a med school and has a science department HEAVILY subsidized by the state of NY via SUNY ESF speaks nothing to it's academics, but it creates a major research dent. However, research expenditures are an easily quantifiable number and they sound "academic" to those who have never gone to college (i.e. all high school perspective students). Given that the B1G was comprised of 10 massive state schools and NW (who is a MASSIVE outlier), they all happened to have a ton of research, as is expected when virtually every school fields med schools, science departments, and engineering schools, and there are a ton of professors. So, it was an attractive bit of PR. The B1G could claim "we're better at research," and then show research budgets to "support" that claim, leading the masses to assume a connection between that an academics, even though almost no connection exists. Clearly they knew what they were doing, given a number of posters seemed to have bought into it completely.

That just highlights the silliness of conversations about the CIC and AAU status. The reality is that athletics and academics are two very different things, and academics and research are two different things. These are all FAR less related than people pretend. When I was doing research at PSU, we were working with a professor from WVU. So much for the CIC, AAU, and virtually every other organization/ranking.

"If Syracuse or a similar institution..."
I think that SU would have preferred the B1G over he BIG EAST, but I think that the ACC is our ideal home. That's evidenced by the fact that we were involved in expansion talks with the ACC every 4-5 years between 1991 and when we joined in 2011.

I also think that the B1G would have preferred SU, given that PSU was the one pushing for expansion, and PSU-SU is MUCH more meaningful than PSU-RU. Objectively, it was once a rivalry. Subjectively, I went to PSU and don't know soul who isn't annoyed about having to share a conference wit RU. Much like UMD, most B1G people that I know see RU as a NYC game, and nothing else. Don't get me wrong, that's important, given he B1G alumni base in NYC (and DC), but SU has proven a willingness to play in NYC and an ability to get games on TV there. SU also brings an athletic dept. that is vastly superior in both quality and following.

However, if you're happy in the B1G, we're happy in the ACC, so let's just be happy. Live and let live, man.

(02-01-2014 06:50 AM)justinslot Wrote:  1. Because Maryland IN PART wanted off the realignment ride and wanted out of a league it barely recognized anymore and had an opportunity to get into the nation's most stable league. That is stable because it is almost entirely composed of Maryland-like institutions. And if you are still discounting the desire of Maryland to seek like-minded institutions and to leave an increasingly jumbled set of institutions as AT LEAST PARTIAL motivating factors--you, my message board friend, are a blind partisan.

2. (And Rutgers is obviously a B1G-like institution. Yes yes yes demographics blah blah blah blah blah. But: AAU member. Sole flagship for a state of 9 million. Colonial College. INVENTED THE SPORT OF FOOTBALL, which makes it both a legend and a leader.)

1. The VAST majority of UMD fans disagree. Very unpopular school admins with B1G backgrounds made the move.
2. Virtually everything listed here is almost entirely irrelevant. RU is very big, in a talent-rich state, and close to a bunch of B1G (esp. PSU) alumni. In terms of things that matter, that's pretty much all RU is, but that's all it needs to be. You're in the B1G. Whether it was a good move or a bad one, it happened. You don't need to keep defending it.

(02-01-2014 09:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 05:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 01:39 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 12:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Ok...

What I laugh about is how absolutely clueless you have continually demonstrated yourself to be, over a period of years now.

And yet...I have been more right in terms of realignment moves than anyone else. Guess you are just as susceptible to saying dumb things as the rest of the Cro-Magnon around here.

Feel free to return to your sensible self anytime now Paco. You don't do so well as an ACC stool pigeon.

There is no 20 school Big Ten with intra-conference playoffs, He1nous. You were pretty much predicting that one and you were dead wrong there. You thought it was imminent. The ACC GOR messed you up there, out of the blue.

This pissing match between Big Ten and ACC folks is like a debate about religion or politics, nobody is going to be convinced by the other side and change their belief system.

Ahhh I was waiting for this revisionist history story to be told. What I said was that the ONLY way the Big Ten scores multiple schools from the ACC is IF they are willing to go to 20 teams and IF certain ACC schools could overcome some very real cultural complications. That was proven to be true later on by released North Carolina emails. The complications were too great.

Where were the complications for moving to the SEC? There were none, the folks at UNC themselves simply didn't want to be in that conference so they worked to strengthen the ACC.


My original Premise was about the Big 12 being picked apart AND Maryland going to the Big Ten. Unfortunately the Forum's history was wiped so you cant see that but that was my first scenario. That changed when the Big 12 signed it's GoR. I was right on that as well as we now know the focus of certain conferences turned upon the ACC. Yes, when the ACC got their GoR that was a sign that the threat was over. The GoR itself didn't end the threat, it just showed that the schools had decided to stick together. It was a symptom, nothing more.

So please, do kindly know the history of what I have said before you spew the usual garbage that comes from revisionist ACC folks that like to spin stories to their own liking.

So far, I am dead on and as my latest opinions go...I am right back where I started with the Big 12 being picked apart. This time though I actually have the ACC in a stronger position than the PAC so why all the hatred upon me? I don't know but I love it. Keep on making things up about me.

Oh, and the playoffs are still coming. As I said...many times, they wouldn't happen until we have new rules and governance. Low and behold...now the big deal is the fight over governance so new rules can be passed. The game isn't over yet so please, do kindly stuff your judgement. What I have said would happen is still very real and very possible.

(02-01-2014 10:17 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 07:10 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 01:34 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  I've been in academia and academic research for years. If you really want to know what your so called "AAU socialites" think, you can start by stopping the regurgitation of athletic conference press releases and similar PR firm hyperbole.

I've been careful here to try to avoid sounding like I'm just repeating the company line. Sometimes the hyperbole is fun for conversation or thrown out there mostly out of exasperation to counter hyperbole from those that really want to trash the Big Ten here above all else.

If Syracuse or a similar institution (granted, a short list) was near the top of the wish list, why would the Big Ten issue "press releases and similar PR firm hyperbole" that would require a bit of retraction if Syracuse became available. I don't see how all this AAU talk could be a product of the athletic departments and PR people and not really representative of what presidents and chancellors were thinking. Why go through the trouble and risk some embarrassment if it really didn't mean much (and with Nebraska I think there's wiggle room there)?

Clearly some smart person in the Big Ten thought through the AAU statements in the context of Syracuse, and they did it anyway. That is not consistent with your position unless you believe that Syracuse was never going to find there way to the Big Ten, in which case this becomes a very Notre Dame-like discussion.

"I don't see how all this AAU talk could be a product of the athletic departments and PR people and not really representative of what presidents and chancellors were thinking."
It's a dumb selling point. The fact that SU doesn't have a med school and has a science department HEAVILY subsidized by the state of NY via SUNY ESF speaks nothing to it's academics, but it creates a major research dent. However, research expenditures are an easily quantifiable number and they sound "academic" to those who have never gone to college (i.e. all high school perspective students). Given that the B1G was comprised of 10 massive state schools and NW (who is a MASSIVE outlier), they all happened to have a ton of research, as is expected when virtually every school fields med schools, science departments, and engineering schools, and there are a ton of professors. So, it was an attractive bit of PR. The B1G could claim "we're better at research," and then show research budgets to "support" that claim, leading the masses to assume a connection between that an academics, even though almost no connection exists. Clearly they knew what they were doing, given a number of posters seemed to have bought into it completely.

That just highlights the silliness of conversations about the CIC and AAU status. The reality is that athletics and academics are two very different things, and academics and research are two different things. These are all FAR less related than people pretend. When I was doing research at PSU, we were working with a professor from WVU. So much for the CIC, AAU, and virtually every other organization/ranking.

"If Syracuse or a similar institution..."
I think that SU would have preferred the B1G over he BIG EAST, but I think that the ACC is our ideal home. That's evidenced by the fact that we were involved in expansion talks with the ACC every 4-5 years between 1991 and when we joined in 2011.

I also think that the B1G would have preferred SU, given that PSU was the one pushing for expansion, and PSU-SU is MUCH more meaningful than PSU-RU. Objectively, it was once a rivalry. Subjectively, I went to PSU and don't know soul who isn't annoyed about having to share a conference wit RU. Much like UMD, most B1G people that I know see RU as a NYC game, and nothing else. Don't get me wrong, that's important, given he B1G alumni base in NYC (and DC), but SU has proven a willingness to play in NYC and an ability to get games on TV there. SU also brings an athletic dept. that is vastly superior in both quality and following.

However, if you're happy in the B1G, we're happy in the ACC, so let's just be happy. Live and let live, man.

PSU may have been a major catalyst for the move thanks to ESPN BUT they didn't get to have sole choice of who was going to join. Perhaps they would have preferred Syracuse over Rutgers, who knows but Penn State has much more history recruiting in the State of New Jersey and currently it is a better place to recruit than the State of New York (which boggles my mind).

So despite the history of Penn State and Syracuse, Rutgers is the better choice today and does fit the Big Ten mold better. That isn't a knock on Syracuse, I would have loved to have seen Syracuse make it someday in the future. You guys are a better fit in the ACC though. It IS the private university conference. Other conferences have Privates but the ACC specializes in it. Even the ACC's Publics like to think of themselves as Privates that happen to have Public support.

(02-01-2014 10:22 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 06:50 AM)justinslot Wrote:  1. Because Maryland IN PART wanted off the realignment ride and wanted out of a league it barely recognized anymore and had an opportunity to get into the nation's most stable league. That is stable because it is almost entirely composed of Maryland-like institutions. And if you are still discounting the desire of Maryland to seek like-minded institutions and to leave an increasingly jumbled set of institutions as AT LEAST PARTIAL motivating factors--you, my message board friend, are a blind partisan.

2. (And Rutgers is obviously a B1G-like institution. Yes yes yes demographics blah blah blah blah blah. But: AAU member. Sole flagship for a state of 9 million. Colonial College. INVENTED THE SPORT OF FOOTBALL, which makes it both a legend and a leader.)

1. The VAST majority of UMD fans disagree. Very unpopular school admins with B1G backgrounds made the move.
2. Virtually everything listed here is almost entirely irrelevant. RU is very big, in a talent-rich state, and close to a bunch of B1G (esp. PSU) alumni. In terms of things that matter, that's pretty much all RU is, but that's all it needs to be. You're in the B1G. Whether it was a good move or a bad one, it happened. You don't need to keep defending it.

Obviously he does because ACC fans still seem to have little man's disease and have to keep knocking the move despite the fact that the ACC destroyed a BCS conference. That is something no other Major Conference can "brag" about. The fact that ACC folks are so vehement in their attacks is just pure hypocrisy.

The conference lost a school, get over it.

(02-01-2014 09:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 05:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 01:39 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 12:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Ok...

What I laugh about is how absolutely clueless you have continually demonstrated yourself to be, over a period of years now.

And yet...I have been more right in terms of realignment moves than anyone else. Guess you are just as susceptible to saying dumb things as the rest of the Cro-Magnon around here.

Feel free to return to your sensible self anytime now Paco. You don't do so well as an ACC stool pigeon.

There is no 20 school Big Ten with intra-conference playoffs, He1nous. You were pretty much predicting that one and you were dead wrong there. You thought it was imminent. The ACC GOR messed you up there, out of the blue.

This pissing match between Big Ten and ACC folks is like a debate about religion or politics, nobody is going to be convinced by the other side and change their belief system.

Yet. What do you think the talk about changing how conferences determine their champions has been about?

(02-01-2014 11:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 09:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 05:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 01:39 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 12:09 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:   Ok...

What I laugh about is how absolutely clueless you have continually demonstrated yourself to be, over a period of years now.

And yet...I have been more right in terms of realignment moves than anyone else. Guess you are just as susceptible to saying dumb things as the rest of the Cro-Magnon around here.

Feel free to return to your sensible self anytime now Paco. You don't do so well as an ACC stool pigeon.

There is no 20 school Big Ten with intra-conference playoffs, He1nous. You were pretty much predicting that one and you were dead wrong there. You thought it was imminent. The ACC GOR messed you up there, out of the blue.

This pissing match between Big Ten and ACC folks is like a debate about religion or politics, nobody is going to be convinced by the other side and change their belief system.

Ahhh I was waiting for this revisionist history story to be told. What I said was that the ONLY way the Big Ten scores multiple schools from the ACC is IF they are willing to go to 20 teams and IF certain ACC schools could overcome some very real cultural complications. That was proven to be true later on by released North Carolina emails. The complications were too great.

Where were the complications for moving to the SEC? There were none, the folks at UNC themselves simply didn't want to be in that conference so they worked to strengthen the ACC.


My original Premise was about the Big 12 being picked apart AND Maryland going to the Big Ten. Unfortunately the Forum's history was wiped so you cant see that but that was my first scenario. That changed when the Big 12 signed it's GoR. I was right on that as well as we now know the focus of certain conferences turned upon the ACC. Yes, when the ACC got their GoR that was a sign that the threat was over. The GoR itself didn't end the threat, it just showed that the schools had decided to stick together. It was a symptom, nothing more.

So please, do kindly know the history of what I have said before you spew the usual garbage that comes from revisionist ACC folks that like to spin stories to their own liking.

So far, I am dead on and as my latest opinions go...I am right back where I started with the Big 12 being picked apart. This time though I actually have the ACC in a stronger position than the PAC so why all the hatred upon me? I don't know but I love it. Keep on making things up about me.

Oh, and the playoffs are still coming. As I said...many times, they wouldn't happen until we have new rules and governance. Low and behold...now the big deal is the fight over governance so new rules can be passed. The game isn't over yet so please, do kindly stuff your judgement. What I have said would happen is still very real and very possible.

Talk about revisionism! North Carolina did not express a preference for either the SEC or Big 10 during their concern over the furor and confusion within the ACC immediately following Maryland's announcement. All the emails revealed was that their fan sentiment was running almost unanimously in favor of the SEC with only 1 email favoring the Big 10. There was absolutely no indication of preference by the administration. The spin here is not from ACC posters, or from Terry D., the spin on this one H1 is from you.

That said you are accurate in defending your 20 team speculation as just speculation. But like all who speculate things change with information. But for the record getting a lucky guess on Maryland out of umpteen dozen scenarios multiplied by a dozen twists and turns on information means only that lightning struck close to you once out of thousands of strikes. I wouldn't bet those odds in Vegas if I were you, as they are extremely slim.

And for the record, as per Jackie Sherrill, 20 team scenarios have been around since 1992 at least.

(02-01-2014 10:22 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 06:50 AM)justinslot Wrote:  1. Because Maryland IN PART wanted off the realignment ride and wanted out of a league it barely recognized anymore and had an opportunity to get into the nation's most stable league. That is stable because it is almost entirely composed of Maryland-like institutions. And if you are still discounting the desire of Maryland to seek like-minded institutions and to leave an increasingly jumbled set of institutions as AT LEAST PARTIAL motivating factors--you, my message board friend, are a blind partisan.

2. (And Rutgers is obviously a B1G-like institution. Yes yes yes demographics blah blah blah blah blah. But: AAU member. Sole flagship for a state of 9 million. Colonial College. INVENTED THE SPORT OF FOOTBALL, which makes it both a legend and a leader.)

1. The VAST majority of UMD fans disagree. Very unpopular school admins with B1G backgrounds made the move.
2. Virtually everything listed here is almost entirely irrelevant. RU is very big, in a talent-rich state, and close to a bunch of B1G (esp. PSU) alumni. In terms of things that matter, that's pretty much all RU is, but that's all it needs to be. You're in the B1G. Whether it was a good move or a bad one, it happened. You don't need to keep defending it.

1. But I didn't mention Maryland fans! I mentioned Maryland, the institution.
2. I don't need to keep defending it? Do you read this message board? You just made the claim in your own reply that Rutgers is in the B1G for reasons that have nothing to do with Rutgers' strengths as a university! If you think a school with Rutgers' absolutely dismal athletic track record is getting into the B1G if it isn't a legit research juggernaut/world university--I don't think you understand the way the B1G thinks very well.

(02-01-2014 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 11:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 09:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 05:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 01:39 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  What I laugh about is how absolutely clueless you have continually demonstrated yourself to be, over a period of years now.

And yet...I have been more right in terms of realignment moves than anyone else. Guess you are just as susceptible to saying dumb things as the rest of the Cro-Magnon around here.

Feel free to return to your sensible self anytime now Paco. You don't do so well as an ACC stool pigeon.

There is no 20 school Big Ten with intra-conference playoffs, He1nous. You were pretty much predicting that one and you were dead wrong there. You thought it was imminent. The ACC GOR messed you up there, out of the blue.

This pissing match between Big Ten and ACC folks is like a debate about religion or politics, nobody is going to be convinced by the other side and change their belief system.

Ahhh I was waiting for this revisionist history story to be told. What I said was that the ONLY way the Big Ten scores multiple schools from the ACC is IF they are willing to go to 20 teams and IF certain ACC schools could overcome some very real cultural complications. That was proven to be true later on by released North Carolina emails. The complications were too great.

Where were the complications for moving to the SEC? There were none, the folks at UNC themselves simply didn't want to be in that conference so they worked to strengthen the ACC.


My original Premise was about the Big 12 being picked apart AND Maryland going to the Big Ten. Unfortunately the Forum's history was wiped so you cant see that but that was my first scenario. That changed when the Big 12 signed it's GoR. I was right on that as well as we now know the focus of certain conferences turned upon the ACC. Yes, when the ACC got their GoR that was a sign that the threat was over. The GoR itself didn't end the threat, it just showed that the schools had decided to stick together. It was a symptom, nothing more.

So please, do kindly know the history of what I have said before you spew the usual garbage that comes from revisionist ACC folks that like to spin stories to their own liking.

So far, I am dead on and as my latest opinions go...I am right back where I started with the Big 12 being picked apart. This time though I actually have the ACC in a stronger position than the PAC so why all the hatred upon me? I don't know but I love it. Keep on making things up about me.

Oh, and the playoffs are still coming. As I said...many times, they wouldn't happen until we have new rules and governance. Low and behold...now the big deal is the fight over governance so new rules can be passed. The game isn't over yet so please, do kindly stuff your judgement. What I have said would happen is still very real and very possible.

Talk about revisionism! North Carolina did not express a preference for either the SEC or Big 10 during their concern over the furor and confusion within the ACC immediately following Maryland's announcement. All the emails revealed was that their fan sentiment was running almost unanimously in favor of the SEC with only 1 email favoring the Big 10. There was absolutely no indication of preference indicated by the administration. The spin here is not from ACC posters, or from Terry D., the spin on this one H1 is from you.

That said you are accurate in defending your 20 team speculation as just speculation. But like all who speculate things change with information. But for the record getting a lucky guess on Maryland out of umpteen dozen scenarios multiplied by a dozen twists and turns on information means only that lightning struck close to you once out of thousands of strikes. I wouldn't bet those odds in Vegas if I were you, as they are extremely slim.

Wow, look at this defensiveness. Where did I state that UNC preferred The Big Ten? My point was that most of the emails were about UNC NOT going to the Big Ten and many were about UNC's need to move...which means the SEC. Yet, no move happened so OBVIOUSLY UNC didn't want to be in the SEC. That is not revisionism and if you cant see that then your homerism is getting in the way. I have stated that the UNC fanbase wouldn't have gone for the move to The Big Ten. UNC made that obvious. What their personal feelings were towards the Big Ten, was never stated.

Nice try spinster. Keep the hatred flowing in my direction. I love it. Even when you guys attempt to say I am spinning, you are spinning in your attempts to say I am spinning. This is great!

Maryland wasn't a lucky guess. Keep spinning. All the factors for movement were there. Maryland's money issue. The ACC becoming something it wasn't before. Those additions by the ACC made the Big Ten a place more akin to what Maryland is. You can claim it was just a lucky guess but when a person maintains ONE SINGLE MOVE while all the other possibilities in the scenarios are fluid...that is not a GUESS.

Keep spinning sir, keep spinning.

(02-01-2014 12:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 11:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 09:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 05:56 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  And yet...I have been more right in terms of realignment moves than anyone else. Guess you are just as susceptible to saying dumb things as the rest of the Cro-Magnon around here.

Feel free to return to your sensible self anytime now Paco. You don't do so well as an ACC stool pigeon.

There is no 20 school Big Ten with intra-conference playoffs, He1nous. You were pretty much predicting that one and you were dead wrong there. You thought it was imminent. The ACC GOR messed you up there, out of the blue.

This pissing match between Big Ten and ACC folks is like a debate about religion or politics, nobody is going to be convinced by the other side and change their belief system.

Ahhh I was waiting for this revisionist history story to be told. What I said was that the ONLY way the Big Ten scores multiple schools from the ACC is IF they are willing to go to 20 teams and IF certain ACC schools could overcome some very real cultural complications. That was proven to be true later on by released North Carolina emails. The complications were too great.

Where were the complications for moving to the SEC? There were none, the folks at UNC themselves simply didn't want to be in that conference so they worked to strengthen the ACC.


My original Premise was about the Big 12 being picked apart AND Maryland going to the Big Ten. Unfortunately the Forum's history was wiped so you cant see that but that was my first scenario. That changed when the Big 12 signed it's GoR. I was right on that as well as we now know the focus of certain conferences turned upon the ACC. Yes, when the ACC got their GoR that was a sign that the threat was over. The GoR itself didn't end the threat, it just showed that the schools had decided to stick together. It was a symptom, nothing more.

So please, do kindly know the history of what I have said before you spew the usual garbage that comes from revisionist ACC folks that like to spin stories to their own liking.

So far, I am dead on and as my latest opinions go...I am right back where I started with the Big 12 being picked apart. This time though I actually have the ACC in a stronger position than the PAC so why all the hatred upon me? I don't know but I love it. Keep on making things up about me.

Oh, and the playoffs are still coming. As I said...many times, they wouldn't happen until we have new rules and governance. Low and behold...now the big deal is the fight over governance so new rules can be passed. The game isn't over yet so please, do kindly stuff your judgement. What I have said would happen is still very real and very possible.

Talk about revisionism! North Carolina did not express a preference for either the SEC or Big 10 during their concern over the furor and confusion within the ACC immediately following Maryland's announcement. All the emails revealed was that their fan sentiment was running almost unanimously in favor of the SEC with only 1 email favoring the Big 10. There was absolutely no indication of preference indicated by the administration. The spin here is not from ACC posters, or from Terry D., the spin on this one H1 is from you.

That said you are accurate in defending your 20 team speculation as just speculation. But like all who speculate things change with information. But for the record getting a lucky guess on Maryland out of umpteen dozen scenarios multiplied by a dozen twists and turns on information means only that lightning struck close to you once out of thousands of strikes. I wouldn't bet those odds in Vegas if I were you, as they are extremely slim.

Wow, look at this defensiveness. Where did I state that UNC preferred The Big Ten? My point was that most of the emails were about UNC NOT going to the Big Ten and many were about UNC's need to move...which means the SEC. Yet, no move happened so OBVIOUSLY UNC didn't want to be in the SEC. That is not revisionism and if you cant see that then your homerism is getting in the way. I have stated that the UNC fanbase wouldn't have gone for the move to The Big Ten. UNC made that obvious. What their personal feelings were towards the Big Ten, was never stated.

Nice try spinster. Keep the hatred flowing in my direction. I love it. Even when you guys attempt to say I am spinning, you are spinning in your attempts to say I am spinning. This is great!

Maryland wasn't a lucky guess. Keep spinning. All the factors for movement were there. Maryland's money issue. The ACC becoming something it wasn't before. Those additions by the ACC made the Big Ten a place more akin to what Maryland is. You can claim it was just a lucky guess but when a person maintains ONE SINGLE MOVE while all the other possibilities in the scenarios are fluid...that is not a GUESS.

Keep spinning sir, keep spinning.

H1 there is no indication that UNC wanted to be anywhere but the ACC. But there is also no indication that they were or weren't looking around. Anything said on the matter would be speculation only. So to say they didn't want one conference and by implication say they wanted the other but that there were too many hurdles to overcome is pure spin off of pure speculation, and all by you.

Nobody hates you either. It's just sometimes it's hard to figure out what you are saying and why you are saying it. And many times you don't read a whole post, let alone the tenor of the thread, and fire off a response based on one lifted detail so that when others read your response they can't possibly understand what you are defensive about.

Nobody here is knocking the Big 10, or the ACC. It is what it is, a legal dispute the settlement of which could have broader ramifications for enforcement, or lack thereof, of exit fees in the future. Rutgers and Maryland are now Big 10 schools, so be it. But as with any ruptured relationship there are hurt feelings. I think the thread is an important one to keep around until there is some kind of resolution on this matter, but if it gets vitriolic again I'll split part of it off to the spin room.

(02-01-2014 11:57 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 10:22 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 06:50 AM)justinslot Wrote:  1. Because Maryland IN PART wanted off the realignment ride and wanted out of a league it barely recognized anymore and had an opportunity to get into the nation's most stable league. That is stable because it is almost entirely composed of Maryland-like institutions. And if you are still discounting the desire of Maryland to seek like-minded institutions and to leave an increasingly jumbled set of institutions as AT LEAST PARTIAL motivating factors--you, my message board friend, are a blind partisan.

2. (And Rutgers is obviously a B1G-like institution. Yes yes yes demographics blah blah blah blah blah. But: AAU member. Sole flagship for a state of 9 million. Colonial College. INVENTED THE SPORT OF FOOTBALL, which makes it both a legend and a leader.)

1. The VAST majority of UMD fans disagree. Very unpopular school admins with B1G backgrounds made the move.
2. Virtually everything listed here is almost entirely irrelevant. RU is very big, in a talent-rich state, and close to a bunch of B1G (esp. PSU) alumni. In terms of things that matter, that's pretty much all RU is, but that's all it needs to be. You're in the B1G. Whether it was a good move or a bad one, it happened. You don't need to keep defending it.

1. But I didn't mention Maryland fans! I mentioned Maryland, the institution.
2. I don't need to keep defending it? Do you read this message board? You just made the claim in your own reply that Rutgers is in the B1G for reasons that have nothing to do with Rutgers' strengths as a university! If you think a school with Rutgers' absolutely dismal athletic track record is getting into the B1G if it isn't a legit research juggernaut/world university--I don't think you understand the way the B1G thinks very well.

It's really quite amazing how some of the new ACC recruits have taken right in with the ACC culture of having to try and disparage anything and everything that has to do with The Big Ten.

Such behavior is generally present in those whom have less self-confidence than those they target.

The street term would be "little brother syndrome". They simply cannot speak positively about ANYTHING involving the Big Ten. That obviously comes from some sort of mental situation going on with them all. Who knows, perhaps some of them wished to see Rutgers fall off while they all moved on so they could raid the State fully. I say that because it seems they only have the fandom mentality and completely lack the mentality to understand what the decision makers are thinking when they make these huge decisions.

Also, I do read entire posts and I do respond properly..I just get tired of having to repeat myself as persons seem unable to have an acute enough memory to remember previous positions. I am constantly having to restate the past and that is very tedious.

Also, persons such as yourself make HUGE posts that go on and on and on and then you expect me to read all of it AND to respond to all of it? Not happening. That is not my problem or an issue with my method of posting.

(02-01-2014 12:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 12:04 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 11:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 11:08 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 09:48 AM)TerryD Wrote:  There is no 20 school Big Ten with intra-conference playoffs, He1nous. You were pretty much predicting that one and you were dead wrong there. You thought it was imminent. The ACC GOR messed you up there, out of the blue.

This pissing match between Big Ten and ACC folks is like a debate about religion or politics, nobody is going to be convinced by the other side and change their belief system.

Ahhh I was waiting for this revisionist history story to be told. What I said was that the ONLY way the Big Ten scores multiple schools from the ACC is IF they are willing to go to 20 teams and IF certain ACC schools could overcome some very real cultural complications. That was proven to be true later on by released North Carolina emails. The complications were too great.

Where were the complications for moving to the SEC? There were none, the folks at UNC themselves simply didn't want to be in that conference so they worked to strengthen the ACC.


My original Premise was about the Big 12 being picked apart AND Maryland going to the Big Ten. Unfortunately the Forum's history was wiped so you cant see that but that was my first scenario. That changed when the Big 12 signed it's GoR. I was right on that as well as we now know the focus of certain conferences turned upon the ACC. Yes, when the ACC got their GoR that was a sign that the threat was over. The GoR itself didn't end the threat, it just showed that the schools had decided to stick together. It was a symptom, nothing more.

So please, do kindly know the history of what I have said before you spew the usual garbage that comes from revisionist ACC folks that like to spin stories to their own liking.

So far, I am dead on and as my latest opinions go...I am right back where I started with the Big 12 being picked apart. This time though I actually have the ACC in a stronger position than the PAC so why all the hatred upon me? I don't know but I love it. Keep on making things up about me.

Oh, and the playoffs are still coming. As I said...many times, they wouldn't happen until we have new rules and governance. Low and behold...now the big deal is the fight over governance so new rules can be passed. The game isn't over yet so please, do kindly stuff your judgement. What I have said would happen is still very real and very possible.

Talk about revisionism! North Carolina did not express a preference for either the SEC or Big 10 during their concern over the furor and confusion within the ACC immediately following Maryland's announcement. All the emails revealed was that their fan sentiment was running almost unanimously in favor of the SEC with only 1 email favoring the Big 10. There was absolutely no indication of preference indicated by the administration. The spin here is not from ACC posters, or from Terry D., the spin on this one H1 is from you.

That said you are accurate in defending your 20 team speculation as just speculation. But like all who speculate things change with information. But for the record getting a lucky guess on Maryland out of umpteen dozen scenarios multiplied by a dozen twists and turns on information means only that lightning struck close to you once out of thousands of strikes. I wouldn't bet those odds in Vegas if I were you, as they are extremely slim.

Wow, look at this defensiveness. Where did I state that UNC preferred The Big Ten? My point was that most of the emails were about UNC NOT going to the Big Ten and many were about UNC's need to move...which means the SEC. Yet, no move happened so OBVIOUSLY UNC didn't want to be in the SEC. That is not revisionism and if you cant see that then your homerism is getting in the way. I have stated that the UNC fanbase wouldn't have gone for the move to The Big Ten. UNC made that obvious. What their personal feelings were towards the Big Ten, was never stated.

Nice try spinster. Keep the hatred flowing in my direction. I love it. Even when you guys attempt to say I am spinning, you are spinning in your attempts to say I am spinning. This is great!

Maryland wasn't a lucky guess. Keep spinning. All the factors for movement were there. Maryland's money issue. The ACC becoming something it wasn't before. Those additions by the ACC made the Big Ten a place more akin to what Maryland is. You can claim it was just a lucky guess but when a person maintains ONE SINGLE MOVE while all the other possibilities in the scenarios are fluid...that is not a GUESS.

Keep spinning sir, keep spinning.

H1 there is no indication that UNC wanted to be anywhere but the ACC. But there is also no indication that they were or weren't looking around. Anything said on the matter would be speculation only. So to say they didn't want one conference and by implication say they wanted the other but that there were too many hurdles to overcome is pure spin off of pure speculation, and all by you.

Nobody hates you either. It's just sometimes it's hard to figure out what you are saying and why you are saying it. And many times you don't read a whole post, let alone the tenor of the thread, and fire off a response based on one lifted detail so that when others read your response they can't possibly understand what you are defensive about.

Nobody here is knocking the Big 10, or the ACC. It is what it is, a legal dispute the settlement of which could have broader ramifications for enforcement, or lack thereof, of exit fees in the future. Rutgers and Maryland are now Big 10 schools, so be it. But as with any ruptured relationship there are hurt feelings. I think the thread is an important one to keep around until there is some kind of resolution on this matter, but if it gets vitriolic again I'll split part of it off to the spin room.

So, spinning my opinions and then removing my posts that set it straight? Ok, im done with responding to you in the future.

(02-01-2014 11:57 AM)justinslot Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 10:22 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(02-01-2014 06:50 AM)justinslot Wrote:  1. Because Maryland IN PART wanted off the realignment ride and wanted out of a league it barely recognized anymore and had an opportunity to get into the nation's most stable league. That is stable because it is almost entirely composed of Maryland-like institutions. And if you are still discounting the desire of Maryland to seek like-minded institutions and to leave an increasingly jumbled set of institutions as AT LEAST PARTIAL motivating factors--you, my message board friend, are a blind partisan.

2. (And Rutgers is obviously a B1G-like institution. Yes yes yes demographics blah blah blah blah blah. But: AAU member. Sole flagship for a state of 9 million. Colonial College. INVENTED THE SPORT OF FOOTBALL, which makes it both a legend and a leader.)

1. The VAST majority of UMD fans disagree. Very unpopular school admins with B1G backgrounds made the move.
2. Virtually everything listed here is almost entirely irrelevant. RU is very big, in a talent-rich state, and close to a bunch of B1G (esp. PSU) alumni. In terms of things that matter, that's pretty much all RU is, but that's all it needs to be. You're in the B1G. Whether it was a good move or a bad one, it happened. You don't need to keep defending it.

1. But I didn't mention Maryland fans! I mentioned Maryland, the institution.
2. I don't need to keep defending it? Do you read this message board? You just made the claim in your own reply that Rutgers is in the B1G for reasons that have nothing to do with Rutgers' strengths as a university! If you think a school with Rutgers' absolutely dismal athletic track record is getting into the B1G if it isn't a legit research juggernaut/world university--I don't think you understand the way the B1G thinks very well.

1. Who do you think makes up the institution?
2. "You just made the claim in your own reply that Rutgers is in the B1G for reasons that have nothing to do with Rutgers' strengths as a university!"
No I said that it had nothing to do with the reasons that you listed. RU isn't an academic embarrassment (it's actually a pretty good university - but that has NOTHING to o with research) and it's a very big school in a great location for recruiting and B1G alumni exposure. That's all it needs. Btw, as far as not understanding B1G culture, I went to a B1G school, I worked for a B1G school, I've done research for a B1G school, and I have lived with 4 different B1G grads (one of which is currently very involved with PSU recruiting in one of the 5 biggest cities in America). Heck, the guy who wrote one of my LOR's to get in PSU headed one of their academic departments. How about you? What special knowledge do you have? I think that you have absolutely no idea what B1G culture is because you've never actually experienced it. Instead, you've read the brochures and are basing your opinion off of that, which is probably why you are buying into the marketing BS.

Going totally off topic to the point of calling people Cro-Magnons. SMH