(02-11-2014 09:38 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 09:09 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  So are they telling me that UNC officials said go ask Maryland?

UNC was busy with some legal issues, which we all know now to be the massive undermining of the credibility of academic processes at UNC.

Ok...I can maybe buy that as plausible...but not them deflecting off on the B1G and tell them go up to Montgomery County.

(02-11-2014 09:34 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 09:27 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  That is the reason Delaney showed up at IU football practice this past August instead of a game. He apparently forgot about Michigan State fans and was soundly booed at The Big Ten Championship game.

He made a pre-season bus tour to all Big Ten schools. If you watched your BTN you would know that....

He was booed at the CCG award ceremony because he asked the crowd to show their appreciation for Ohio State. Like that was going to happen.

Not true, he was talking up Ohio State and not getting a word in about MSU until after a speech about the Bucknuts, **** him and his trying to please Ohio State and UofM.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

On the Nebraska side of things, it will be very interesting to see how much they are "in the hole" compared to an average Big 12 member by the time they are a fully vested Big 10 members. Also Nebraska, was not an "average" Big 12 member but an above average one, so the discrepancy will be ever greater than what is reported via the average Big 12 member figure used in the article

(02-11-2014 02:15 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 02:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  What's the value of the dollar they'll get today when they'll be throwing it back in the future?

And what happens if there's another contract negotiation?

This is a sweeter deal than pro-B1G people want to admit.

I think they probably teach how to calculate Future Value and NPV at all 11 institutions with eyes on how the new kids are getting paid.

...and yet, nobody would give the writers of the piece a straight answer to the question about the deals being totally equal.

"Underlying principles" =\= equal
Perlman's complete dodge and retort that's better than the alternative =\= equal
The future promised land where the money is amazing =\= equal

All the writers could get from folks was spin and hyperbole.

(02-12-2014 06:43 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  All the writers could get from folks was spin and hyperbole.

It's been interesting to watch how first Nebraska, then Rutgers said they wanted to play "Big Ten schools". That is "we joined this conference as is, no need to go out and add more". Perhaps Maryland said the same, I just haven't seen it.

I think a big part of it (for fans and admins) is the process of justifying to their peeps to make a conference change. Water-cooler talk. Then, the picture changes. The world criticizes the additions of Rutgers and Maryland and they have to go on the defensive and start the process over.

So, now when repeatedly asked about how the money flows, I think it's a sore and worn-out subject; one they would rather not address. And then there's the confidentiality side of it all...

(02-12-2014 08:26 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  So, now when repeatedly asked about how the money flows, I think it's a sore and worn-out subject; one they would rather not address. And then there's the confidentiality side of it all...

I may be in the minority, but I think people have a right to know that. These aren't private, for-profit businesses. When the questions come up, the answers should be readily fielded with fact.

I know it's quite popular to play the "noneofyourd***business" thing, and we folks are not much help letting these schools act like corporations, but whenever those folks in the ivory tower want to forgo their non-profit status, then they can join that club over at the adult table.

This kind of stuff...this is what those looney tunes over in the Rutgers 1000 would use to push their grievances with anything athletically-related. And while they don't act with any sort of rationality, nor do I agree with their end-game, I can't help but think they have a right to be upset that stuff like this is handled so secretly and sloppy. It's not like Rutgers is printing money over there...

So Maryland and Rutgers are no more than prostitutes (selling themselves to the highest bidder) and Nebraska got screwed because Lincoln doesn't have enought TV sets. I'm glad the B10 doesn't want UC.

It's the Big 2 and eveyone else - the way it's always been.

(02-12-2014 06:43 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 02:15 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(02-11-2014 02:01 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  What's the value of the dollar they'll get today when they'll be throwing it back in the future?

And what happens if there's another contract negotiation?

This is a sweeter deal than pro-B1G people want to admit.

I think they probably teach how to calculate Future Value and NPV at all 11 institutions with eyes on how the new kids are getting paid.

...and yet, nobody would give the writers of the piece a straight answer to the question about the deals being totally equal.

"Underlying principles" =\= equal
Perlman's complete dodge and retort that's better than the alternative =\= equal
The future promised land where the money is amazing =\= equal

All the writers could get from folks was spin and hyperbole.

I think the reality is the deals are not equal, or as Orwell would say, some are equaller than others. Without getting into which school is 'better' by any metric, Maryland simply had far more leverage than Nebraska or Rutgers did and used that to its advantage. Nebraska was looking to flee the imploding (at the time) Big 12 and Rutgers the same with the former Big East. Maryland was a founding member of the completely stable and relatively lucrative ACC and had absolutely no reason (on the surface) to leave.

Maryland's President Loh must have known the negative reaction the move was going to receive from the students, alumni and Board of Regents. It came out in the local coverage of the move that he was able to use this in the negotiations - essentially Loh needed a fantastic deal which he could pitch to stakeholders completely hostile to leaving the ACC. Thus the sweet frontloaded deal with an extra $30m tacked on for 'traveling expenses.' None of this means Maryland is more valuable than Nebraska, Penn State (who I also do not think received such generous terms) or Rutgers. Maryland just had an enormous amount of leverage and used it accordingly.

(02-12-2014 09:56 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 08:26 AM)SeaBlue Wrote:  So, now when repeatedly asked about how the money flows, I think it's a sore and worn-out subject; one they would rather not address. And then there's the confidentiality side of it all...

I may be in the minority, but I think people have a right to know that. These aren't private, for-profit businesses. When the questions come up, the answers should be readily fielded with fact.

I know it's quite popular to play the "noneofyourd***business" thing, and we folks are not much help letting these schools act like corporations, but whenever those folks in the ivory tower want to forgo their non-profit status, then they can join that club over at the adult table.

This kind of stuff...this is what those looney tunes over in the Rutgers 1000 would use to push their grievances with anything athletically-related. And while they don't act with any sort of rationality, nor do I agree with their end-game, I can't help but think they have a right to be upset that stuff like this is handled so secretly and sloppy. It's not like Rutgers is printing money over there...

I doubt you are in the minority concerning information from public institutions that should be available. New Jersey's Star Ledger was able to obtain a bunch of information related to the Rutgers move via the state's Open Public Records Act (OPRA). I know some media outlets in other states have been able to do the same with their local schools (the Omaha article posted by the OP used Nebraska's version of OPRA).

(02-12-2014 11:27 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  So Maryland and Rutgers are no more than prostitutes (selling themselves to the highest bidder) and Nebraska got screwed because Lincoln doesn't have enought TV sets. I'm glad the B10 doesn't want UC.

It's the Big 2 and eveyone else - the way it's always been.

Eh that's rather unfair to Rutgers - should they have refused to board the lifeboat and be stuck in the AAC now (no offense AAC fans - obviously not fair to compare it to the Big 10)? Maryland it was more of a cash grab but I suspect there were other motivations as well. On the positive side, the Big 10 is a better fit with a bunch of other state flagship land grant institutions (Maryland would like to emulate the success of schools like Michigan). On the negative side, many at Maryland viewed us as the red headed stepchild in the 'All Carolina Conference.' We might remain the red headed shepchild in the Big 10, but that's easier when those big checks are clearing.

I have to fully admit that I am in the minority in favor (albeit reluctantly) of the move. There is some bias because I live in New Jersey (which puts road matchups at Rutgers and Penn State a mere couple hours away) and do not view Maryland as being southern (there's no difference in them playing midwestern schools instead of southern schools imo). The rivalries with Duke or UNC were never mutual and the one with UVA was forced (at least the last 10-15 years - the student body never got hyped up for anything besides Duke and occasionally UNC). That said, I still like the ACC and will continue to root for its success and prosperity even after Maryland departs.

(02-12-2014 12:10 PM)Brick City Wrote:  Maryland just had an enormous amount of leverage and used it accordingly.

Other than this, I agree. I just don't see leverage when the alternative to Maryland going to the Big Ten is more cut programs. And, really, even with this windfall, only one program is getting resurrection considerations, and even that's down the road substantially.

I think it what it shows is that the Big Ten wanted Maryland even more than Nebraska and Rutgers. And the Big Ten doesn't care what it takes to get them. That's the only leverage...that Maryland was desperately wanted by these other twelve schools.

(02-12-2014 11:27 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  So Maryland and Rutgers are no more than prostitutes (selling themselves to the highest bidder) and Nebraska got screwed because Lincoln doesn't have enought TV sets. I'm glad the B10 doesn't want UC.

It's the Big 2 and eveyone else - the way it's always been.

Nice little man spin.

(02-12-2014 02:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 12:10 PM)Brick City Wrote:  Maryland just had an enormous amount of leverage and used it accordingly.

Other than this, I agree. I just don't see leverage when the alternative to Maryland going to the Big Ten is more cut programs. And, really, even with this windfall, only one program is getting resurrection considerations, and even that's down the road substantially.

I think it what it shows is that the Big Ten wanted Maryland even more than Nebraska and Rutgers. And the Big Ten doesn't care what it takes to get them. That's the only leverage...that Maryland was desperately wanted by these other twelve schools.

Penn State was Maryland's leverage and in the wake of losing ND, the B10 really had no alternative since the downside of possibly losing PSU was so great compared to the cost of adding MD.

(02-12-2014 09:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 02:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 12:10 PM)Brick City Wrote:  Maryland just had an enormous amount of leverage and used it accordingly.

Other than this, I agree. I just don't see leverage when the alternative to Maryland going to the Big Ten is more cut programs. And, really, even with this windfall, only one program is getting resurrection considerations, and even that's down the road substantially.

I think it what it shows is that the Big Ten wanted Maryland even more than Nebraska and Rutgers. And the Big Ten doesn't care what it takes to get them. That's the only leverage...that Maryland was desperately wanted by these other twelve schools.

Penn State was Maryland's leverage and in the wake of losing ND, the B10 really had no alternative since the downside of possibly losing PSU was so great compared to the cost of adding MD.

PSU to the ACC still wouldn't have helped UMD's bleeding athletic department. If television revenue was the magical revenue elixir people think it was, Big Ten money would have saved all of the cut programs at Maryland, easily and within a definitive timetable, and the school wouldn't have rebuffed the conference back in 2010.

I think UMD had more leverage with the ACC, but Loh simply chose to tune them out. Oh well.

(02-14-2014 11:52 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 09:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 02:26 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 12:10 PM)Brick City Wrote:  Maryland just had an enormous amount of leverage and used it accordingly.

Other than this, I agree. I just don't see leverage when the alternative to Maryland going to the Big Ten is more cut programs. And, really, even with this windfall, only one program is getting resurrection considerations, and even that's down the road substantially.

I think it what it shows is that the Big Ten wanted Maryland even more than Nebraska and Rutgers. And the Big Ten doesn't care what it takes to get them. That's the only leverage...that Maryland was desperately wanted by these other twelve schools.

Penn State was Maryland's leverage and in the wake of losing ND, the B10 really had no alternative since the downside of possibly losing PSU was so great compared to the cost of adding MD.

PSU to the ACC still wouldn't have helped UMD's bleeding athletic department. If television revenue was the magical revenue elixir people think it was, Big Ten money would have saved all of the cut programs at Maryland, easily and within a definitive timetable, and the school wouldn't have rebuffed the conference back in 2010.

I think UMD had more leverage with the ACC, but Loh simply chose to tune them out. Oh well.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/19594...in-big-ten

Quote:Maryland's uncertain ACC exit fee and its own budgetary issues have to be a big worry as they head in to a conference that is among the richest in collegiate athletics.

It's especially worrisome when Maryland's hope of using Big Ten monies for a quick turnaround appear dead in the water. The commission recommended the following about the use of monies for the building of facilities like an indoor practice facility:

"Facilities needs, including practice fields, an indoor practice facility, and a Varsity Team House, should be viewed as capital expenses and should not be financed with revenues from the Big Ten."

That's how bad Maryland's fiscal situation is. Despite a nearly $10 million increase in revenues from the Big Ten move, the Terps are not in position to use that added money to improve facilities that will make them more competitive.

Maryland's reality when it joins the Big Ten is that for the better part of its first 10 years in the league it'll be paying for the ineptitude of athletic departments past.

While Maryland has the bigger name recognition, it's clear that the internal setups of these two institutions couldn't be further from each other.

It all adds up to advantage Rutgers, as these two chart a new course in the Big Ten.

Right. And the Big Ten requests this financial stuff when schools are under consideration. This wouldn't have been a surprise finding to the Big Ten. They weren't duped, and went all-in on them anyway.

Top to bottom, Maryland messed this up (and apparently still continues to). But the Big Ten was going to be there to catch them no matter what.

(02-12-2014 09:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Penn State was Maryland's leverage and in the wake of losing ND, the B10 really had no alternative since the downside of possibly losing PSU was so great compared to the cost of adding MD.

Setting aside the Athletics Department perspective, from the perspective of Big Ten Presidents, adding UMd is a win worth a substantial amount on its own account. Not only is UMd a prestige-building add in terms of the CIC academic respectability fig-leaf for Big Ten football factories, but College Park is right there in the northern suburbs of DC, where much of the research funding monies originate. And research funding is, when it comes down to it, bigger dollars than AD revenues.

(02-15-2014 01:59 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(02-12-2014 09:51 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Penn State was Maryland's leverage and in the wake of losing ND, the B10 really had no alternative since the downside of possibly losing PSU was so great compared to the cost of adding MD.

Setting aside the Athletics Department perspective, from the perspective of Big Ten Presidents, adding UMd is a win worth a substantial amount on its own account. Not only is UMd a prestige-building add in terms of the CIC academic respectability fig-leaf for Big Ten football factories, but College Park is right there in the northern suburbs of DC, where much of the research funding monies originate. And research funding is, when it comes down to it, bigger dollars than AD revenues.

You do know that CIC is not what most folks think it is - is not a research consortium - it's a joint purchasing function and a shared library. Schools like VT already share that library through a side agreement with Michigan. CIC is a red herring like AAU.

There is more to the CIC than that. It is not what some folks make it out to be but it is certainly more than what some other folks make it out to be.

Just one function you missed, is the shared foreign exchange programs. In today's global economy, such experiences are appreciated.

Also difficult to quantify, are the relationships built on the CIC board and how that trickles down. Regardless, folks with a reason to minimize it's value should not be taken at face value on their accounts when they so obviously are not painting the full picture.

(02-15-2014 11:40 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You do know that CIC is not what most folks think it is - is not a research consortium - it's a joint purchasing function and a shared library. Schools like VT already share that library through a side agreement with Michigan. CIC is a red herring like AAU.

I believe the Michigan exchange is not the same as the access granted via the CIC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but libraries regularly make collections available (or rotate collections, etc.) while not necessarily cooperating in a full exchange.

Likewise, Big Ten schools cooperate on common research outside of the Big Ten (Purdue and Notre Dame is one example I am familiar with).

While 99.9...% of us will never directly benefit from CIC cooperation, I see it as a built-in letter of recommendation. If a student or employee would like to utilize resources at another institution, the first barrier has already been crossed. That is, "who can I call at school x that might be able to help me".

So, weak as that may be, it is at a minimum an intent to cooperate that is a very nice counterpart to the athletic association between schools.

Has Johns Hopkins even decided it will join the CIC?

(02-15-2014 03:27 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Has Johns Hopkins even decided it will join the CIC?

It hasn't even made a permanent commitment to join Big Ten Lacrosse.

(02-15-2014 11:40 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  You do know that CIC is not what most folks think it is - is not a research consortium - it's a joint purchasing function and a shared library.

You do know that its not limited to a joint purchasing function and share library services, but rather those are simply the two biggest immediate budget impact aspects of the activities of the CIC? I do not know what you think a "research consortium" consists of, but the CIC certainly provides a framework for faculty from multiple Big Ten schools to collaborate on grant applications. And that is in addition to the shared library services, which you mention as if it were not a critical research support activity of the university.

It was originally established in 1958 in the wake of the football factory scandals of the 50's, to give a fig leaf of greater academic respectability to the Big Ten. Getting academics from across the Big Ten schools together to talk about how they could collaborate for mutual benefit on an ongoing basis since then, some of the benefits of the collaboration have more obvious dollar values attached and some less, but it would be absurd to claim that the CIC is nothing but an organization joint purchasing and shared library services.