I happened to be driving by the University of Maryland on Route 1 and noticed that the athletic department employed sign flippers at the school's main entrance to remind students, fans and passers-by of Maryland's first home game (against James Madison) of this season. I thought the situation can't be that bad. Plus the school already has a brick billboard on Route 1 advertising the football's team's home schedule. It's been in use for several decades.

Quote:Indeed, the conference doesn't anticipate that adding Rutgers is going to make the Northeast a Big Ten hub. But with Maryland, Delany believes the Big Ten is now entrenched in the "most competitive corridor in the world—in everything. Maybe that stretch of real estate is as important real estate as exists in the world."

Yes JR, but the Big Move is totally in the hands of ESPN and it doesn't include the likes of Buffalo or UConn. That makes Delany's statement of it being out of his control completely true.

ESPN and to a lesser degree Fox, CBS and perhaps even NBC have to make it possible for that Armageddon move to happen. If they put the money on the table, it will be extremely difficult to turn down.

(09-17-2014 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 06:57 AM)BE4evah Wrote:  Straight from the horses mouth:[/i][/b]


Expansion in all areas was researched, but potential new additions had to be what Delany called "peer" institutions with the existing Big Ten schools. Delany said the Big Ten also looked into the expanding into the Sun Belt region.

"But there had to be a mutuality of interest. Rutgers and Maryland both fit the profile we wanted," he said.
.......
For now, Delany, 66, thinks expansion has stopped.

"I don't see anything on the horizon," he says. "I think now is a time for a period of quiet reflection about what has happened. But who knows what will happen? A lot of it is out of our control."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21961...-term-wins

1. The Bleacher Report is hardly a reputable source. It is quite possibly the absolute worst sports information site on the internet. But I remember when Delany said all of that so that much is so.

2. Delany said they wanted peer institutions. That means public land grants with AAU status preferably in contiguous states. So the list should be fairly short although not all targets will be necessarily land grant schools.

The article is written by Mark Blaudshun. A quick google search I did before I posted shows he's a very well-respected, very well-connected reporter. In fact, he was the reporter that got the interview with the BC AD Deflipper when he said ESPN tells them what to do!

I don't think Kansas will make the cut. It is like UConn but with AAU and just makes the Big Ten more Midwest centric. The Big Ten went east. If they can't get UVA, that stops expansion. Besides, Kansas has a grant of rights. Might as well grab UConn (superior market, superior academics, and even a nod to UConn for (marginally) superior athletic department. But UVA looks like it was the key. 15 years from now, that's the one to look for.

(09-17-2014 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 06:57 AM)BE4evah Wrote:  Straight from the horses mouth:[/i][/b]


Expansion in all areas was researched, but potential new additions had to be what Delany called "peer" institutions with the existing Big Ten schools. Delany said the Big Ten also looked into the expanding into the Sun Belt region.

"But there had to be a mutuality of interest. Rutgers and Maryland both fit the profile we wanted," he said.
.......
For now, Delany, 66, thinks expansion has stopped.

"I don't see anything on the horizon," he says. "I think now is a time for a period of quiet reflection about what has happened. But who knows what will happen? A lot of it is out of our control."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21961...-term-wins

1. The Bleacher Report is hardly a reputable source. It is quite possibly the absolute worst sports information site on the internet. But I remember when Delany said all of that so that much is so.

2. Delany said they wanted peer institutions. That means public land grants with AAU status preferably in contiguous states. So the list should be fairly short although not all targets will be necessarily land grant schools.

Kansas, Virginia, North Carolina, (long shot Duke since it is private), Georgia Tech, and Florida.

3. Of those the ones that may have had mutual interest are Kansas and Georgia Tech.

4. Without interest from Virginia or North Carolina, Georgia Tech is off the board.

5. That leaves Kansas. So, that is why Delany thinks its time to pause and reflect.

6. His last quip is the most important part of the whole piece, "A lot of it is out of our control." A loose translation of this might be this, "ESPN controls all of the pieces we want and we are in bed with FOX therefore our future realignment desires are out of our control." Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech are 100% ESPN properties and under a GOR with them. Florida isn't joining the Big 10, but even if they wanted to they are bound through the SECN to ESPN. Kansas's lucrative T3 rights and a portion of their T1 is controlled by ESPN. Even the non AAU properties of the New England area are controlled by ESPN (Boston College, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh which is AAU but and public but functions as a quasi private institution).

So Jim Delany is free to take Buffalo and Connecticut. Buffalo is AAU and Connecticut is not. Jim Delany pauses because on his own he has no other top notch prospects that are free to make a choice, or who can escape with merely an exit fee.

Florida isn't joining the B1G, but isn't any SEC school theoretically free to leave (they don't even have an exit fee let alone a GOR)? I am not sure what you mean by "bound" to ESPN.

Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Florida are all top targets for the B1G. Nothing new really.

(09-17-2014 09:57 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Florida are all top targets for the B1G. Nothing new really.

Those schools may indeed be top targets for the Big 10, but I would imagine a move to the conference would be a complete non-starter for Texas, Florida or Florida State. And I believe the only way the ACC four schools that you mentioned would even consider such a move would be as a group. Even then, I don't see that happening when most, if not all, of those schools could have similar options in the SEC should another round of realignment seem inevitable.

(09-17-2014 10:20 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 09:57 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Florida are all top targets for the B1G. Nothing new really.

Those schools may indeed be top targets for the Big 10, but I would imagine a move to the conference would be a complete non-starter for Texas, Florida or Florida State. And I believe the only way the ACC four schools that you mentioned would even consider such a move would be as a group. Even then, I don't see that happening when most, if not all, of those schools could have similar options in the SEC should another round of realignment seem inevitable.

Which is why, what eventually happens, will be a compromise all around. No one will end up getting what they wanted exactly.

There is a school in the Sunbelt that is permanently stuck there and wants to get out but no one wants them.They think the Big 12 wants them but maybe they can jump Cusa and the AAC and go directly to the Big 10. The University of Louisiana at Lafayette UL-L. They lost their last two games against opposing schools scoring 104 points against them. This is factual!

(09-17-2014 09:57 PM)AntiG Wrote:  Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State and Florida are all top targets for the B1G. Nothing new really.

That and Santa's Workshop.

A college needs to be part of AAU (Association of American Universities) -- which eliminates a lot. Nebraska recently got kicked out of it due to something about their medical college but they were made an exception. I assume they'll make exceptions for big high-quality and academic universities not technically in it, if the market's really good. But it will still eliminate a lot of universities!

One of the reasons why the B1G brought in Maryland & Rutgers. They Are part of the AAU (and hit good expanding markets).

They're pretty much stuck to either:
(a) Pull a team from another P5 conference who's not Great at football but is an academic school
(b) Pull a school like Rice or whomever from the G5 who isn't going to add anything, really

I think they'll have to change their requirements in this whole league-expansion thing... which I am *NOT* a fan of. 14 teams in a conference? Too much. I could see it as a temporary thing for a G5 when a team is spring-boarding from one to another (see Temple, Marshall, UCF, UMass in MAC). And 16? WTF?

I would say a league maximum would be 12 or 13. Basically, in your division of the conference, you want to play the other division a decent amount for conference games. Otherwise, you mine as well split into two different conferences!

At 16, you have 7 games in-division every year. Then, in my book, you should play half or close to half (if odd number) of the other division. In this case, it'd be 4.

So you'd have 11 conference games every year, which would leave *1* non-conf. WTF?

IMO, bare-minimum 3 OOC games. Which would leave 9 conference games. 14 teams would mean 6 in-division/3 out-division games. IMO, that's the maximum it should ever be allowed.

Ideally -- 12. 5 in-division / 3 out-division / 4 OOC.

Having 1 or 2 OOC games will HURT college football a lot. It will be completely silly.

(09-17-2014 07:39 PM)krup Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 05:05 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-17-2014 06:57 AM)BE4evah Wrote:  Straight from the horses mouth:[/i][/b]


Expansion in all areas was researched, but potential new additions had to be what Delany called "peer" institutions with the existing Big Ten schools. Delany said the Big Ten also looked into the expanding into the Sun Belt region.

"But there had to be a mutuality of interest. Rutgers and Maryland both fit the profile we wanted," he said.
.......
For now, Delany, 66, thinks expansion has stopped.

"I don't see anything on the horizon," he says. "I think now is a time for a period of quiet reflection about what has happened. But who knows what will happen? A lot of it is out of our control."

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/21961...-term-wins

1. The Bleacher Report is hardly a reputable source. It is quite possibly the absolute worst sports information site on the internet. But I remember when Delany said all of that so that much is so.

2. Delany said they wanted peer institutions. That means public land grants with AAU status preferably in contiguous states. So the list should be fairly short although not all targets will be necessarily land grant schools.

Kansas, Virginia, North Carolina, (long shot Duke since it is private), Georgia Tech, and Florida.

3. Of those the ones that may have had mutual interest are Kansas and Georgia Tech.

4. Without interest from Virginia or North Carolina, Georgia Tech is off the board.

5. That leaves Kansas. So, that is why Delany thinks its time to pause and reflect.

6. His last quip is the most important part of the whole piece, "A lot of it is out of our control." A loose translation of this might be this, "ESPN controls all of the pieces we want and we are in bed with FOX therefore our future realignment desires are out of our control." Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia Tech are 100% ESPN properties and under a GOR with them. Florida isn't joining the Big 10, but even if they wanted to they are bound through the SECN to ESPN. Kansas's lucrative T3 rights and a portion of their T1 is controlled by ESPN. Even the non AAU properties of the New England area are controlled by ESPN (Boston College, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh which is AAU but and public but functions as a quasi private institution).

So Jim Delany is free to take Buffalo and Connecticut. Buffalo is AAU and Connecticut is not. Jim Delany pauses because on his own he has no other top notch prospects that are free to make a choice, or who can escape with merely an exit fee.

Florida isn't joining the B1G, but isn't any SEC school theoretically free to leave (they don't even have an exit fee let alone a GOR)? I am not sure what you mean by "bound" to ESPN.

No the SEC doesn't have an exit fee or a GOR, but I'm reasonably sure that ESPN has one for the schools comprising the SECN.

(09-18-2014 01:48 AM)toddjnsn Wrote:  A college needs to be part of AAU (Association of American Universities) -- which eliminates a lot. Nebraska recently got kicked out of it due to something about their medical college but they were made an exception. I assume they'll make exceptions for big high-quality and academic universities not technically in it, if the market's really good. But it will still eliminate a lot of universities!

One of the reasons why the B1G brought in Maryland & Rutgers. They Are part of the AAU (and hit good expanding markets).

They're pretty much stuck to either:
(a) Pull a team from another P5 conference who's not Great at football but is an academic school
(b) Pull a school like Rice or whomever from the G5 who isn't going to add anything, really

I think they'll have to change their requirements in this whole league-expansion thing... which I am *NOT* a fan of. 14 teams in a conference? Too much. I could see it as a temporary thing for a G5 when a team is spring-boarding from one to another (see Temple, Marshall, UCF, UMass in MAC). And 16? WTF?

I would say a league maximum would be 12 or 13. Basically, in your division of the conference, you want to play the other division a decent amount for conference games. Otherwise, you mine as well split into two different conferences!

At 16, you have 7 games in-division every year. Then, in my book, you should play half or close to half (if odd number) of the other division. In this case, it'd be 4.

So you'd have 11 conference games every year, which would leave *1* non-conf. WTF?

IMO, bare-minimum 3 OOC games. Which would leave 9 conference games. 14 teams would mean 6 in-division/3 out-division games. IMO, that's the maximum it should ever be allowed.

Ideally -- 12. 5 in-division / 3 out-division / 4 OOC.

Having 1 or 2 OOC games will HURT college football a lot. It will be completely silly.

AAU membership is A. meaningless (in general), and B. a marketing bit that the B1G used to use. It's something that all the schools used to have in common, so they built up the perceived significance of it to make member schools appear more elite. The ACC uses USNWR and the Pac uses ARWU (which is also completely irrelevant to academics) the same way the B1G uses AAU status.

The B1G doesn't really care about AAU.

How exactly is this news? During the college realignment missile standoff of 2010 the Big Ten was rumored to be looking at Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Vandy, Texas and A&M at a minimum. Not ironically 3 of those are now members.

(09-18-2014 08:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  AAU membership is A. meaningless (in general), and B. a marketing bit that the B1G used to use. It's something that all the schools used to have in common, so they built up the perceived significance of it to make member schools appear more elite. The ACC uses USNWR and the Pac uses ARWU (which is also completely irrelevant to academics) the same way the B1G uses AAU status.

The B1G doesn't really care about AAU.

Agree with the premise. But USNWR is irrelevant to everyone too. ARWU is less so as it is a more objective ranking.

(09-18-2014 08:32 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(09-18-2014 08:24 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  AAU membership is A. meaningless (in general), and B. a marketing bit that the B1G used to use. It's something that all the schools used to have in common, so they built up the perceived significance of it to make member schools appear more elite. The ACC uses USNWR and the Pac uses ARWU (which is also completely irrelevant to academics) the same way the B1G uses AAU status.

The B1G doesn't really care about AAU.

Agree with the premise. But USNWR is irrelevant to everyone too. ARWU is less so as it is a more objective ranking.

ARWU's metrics are more objective. My knock on that ranking system is that the metric, while objective, are irrelevant to academics.

USNWR is subjective (albeit much of that balances out) and can be gamed (as can any ranking system), but it does undeniably rank academics. ARWU doesn't. It generally ranks research.

with the way things are going OOC for the Big Ten, maybe they should expand into the Sun Belt Conference?

(09-18-2014 09:22 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  with the way things are going OOC for the Big Ten, maybe they should expand into the Sun Belt Conference?

The Sun Belt Conference that went 0-10 OOC last weekend?

There had to be mutual interest. The B1G likely wanted some combo of UNC, GT and UVa, but those three schools were not interested.

The B1G settled for par (Rutgers, Maryland).

Ironically, the Texas and TAMU to the Big Ten move was shelved very early on in the discussion because of "politics." The prevailing idea was that Texas Tech would have been left behind, and UT/TAMU didn't want the "blood of the Big 12" on their hands.

Now, look where they are. TAMU and UT's rivalry is dead. The Big 12 is the flimsiest conference out there (it may have been all along, but it certainly is now).

In retrospect, I feel comfortable in saying that the SEC would have snatched up TTech, OU, OkSt in a heartbeat if the Big 12 imploded. Maybe Baylor too, if the whole thing would have gone to 16.

Rutgers still would have gotten its invite. They were long on the Big Ten's radar. But I doubt they would have tried to break up the ACC with the Maryland grab. Probably just Missouri (if ND wouldn't have been Big Ten team #16...and they wouldn't have).

Which would have left Kansas, KSt, TCU, Iowa St., WVU out in the cold...to go to the 14-team ACC (still with UMD) or the still-existent Big East.

(09-18-2014 08:30 AM)brista21 Wrote:  How exactly is this news? During the college realignment missile standoff of 2010 the Big Ten was rumored to be looking at Nebraska, Missouri, Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Maryland, Georgia Tech, Vandy, Texas and A&M at a minimum. Not ironically 3 of those are now members.

I'd like to know who the Big Ten really talked to, because some of those above, were only rumored or studied (and you're forgetting Oklahoma and Kansas, as they were in the same study as Vandy).