(10-09-2014 08:10 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:22 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  I think the culture aspect is way overstated. A lot of it is derived from Internet board fans saying they don't want to be in a northern conference or Midwestern conference or what not but Internet board fans don't matter. Joe Schmoe alumni don't matter either. The only way local culture matters is thru the high end boosters. Maryland fans and alumni hated the Big Ten move and any intouch administrator new that going in. That's why the move was done behind closed doors and got the approval of Kevin Plank, under armor CEO, and other high end boosters before it went thru. So the question is will any high end boosters at those schools reject a Big Ten move compared to their current location? I don't know.

Many of us Maryland grads and fans still hate the move to the Big Ten.

Yes because it reminds you of what Maryland really is.....a continuation of South Jersey.

Ocean City your little hangout is filled with people vacationing from PA an NJ. Penn State gear can be seen all over Federal Hill in Baltimore.

(10-09-2014 07:22 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  In spite of recent rumors Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, and Miami would not be served, or respected, in their own home markets by making a move North. Virginia and North Carolina may truly be cultural border states that could make such a move, but they don't see themselves fitting into the model of Big 10 schools.

I think the culture aspect is way overstated. A lot of it is derived from Internet board fans saying they don't want to be in a northern conference or Midwestern conference or what not but Internet board fans don't matter. Joe Schmoe alumni don't matter either. The only way local culture matters is thru the high end boosters. Maryland fans and alumni hated the Big Ten move and any intouch administrator new that going in. That's why the move was done behind closed doors and got the approval of Kevin Plank, under armor CEO, and other high end boosters before it went thru. So the question is will any high end boosters at those schools reject a Big Ten move compared to their current location? I don't know.

The other reason culture doesn't really matter is academia is a culture on to itself. Most of the top administrators lead nomad lives crossing the country over multiple conferences and schools on their way to the top. If you meet any of these guys, they tend to have utter contempt for their own students let alone tshirt fans. So they would be all in on any move that raises their status in the closed circles of academia. Any of the administrators at those schools would be all in on a big ten move since the big ten has the shiny academic reputation and CIC and is mostly AAU which is catnip to these people. So the question is can they convince the high end boosters of the benefits of a move if there is push back?

The Big Ten will expand south at some point. They already admitting to looking at expanding into the Sun Belt. There are too many resources in students, research money, television dollars, political capital, etc, outside of their footprint not to expand. The question is when and with whom? Also how big are they willing to get. Texas makes a ton of sense but not by itself on an island and there isn't enough AAU schools to bridge that gap. So it will be interesting to see. I think a school in Virginia is definitely a target though just because there is a ton of resources in that state and it sits right in the current footprints border.

The presidents of the Big 10 feel the same way. That limits who they would consider adding. The list of who they would consider is pretty short. Kansas, Texas, maybe Oklahoma, maybe Iowa St. if they needed filler; UVA, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, maybe Virginia Tech, maybe Miami, maybe Pitt for filler; maybe UConn; Vanderbilt, Florida and maybe Georgia. Then that list would be shortened as a number don't add financially.

Let me fix it for you, bullet.
Texas, OU, Kansas are the only Big 12 schools.
UNC, UVA, Duke, Georgia Tech are the only ACC schools.
Missouri, TAMU, and Vandy are the only SEC schools.
ND obviously, but that ship has sailed.
Maybe UConn.

AAU is key...geographic expansion/markets are key...solid men's sports are key. I'm not saying the Big Ten can ever or will ever GET any of those...but if you're speculating, don't look anywhere else.

People floating Cincy and Pitt and NCSt and Iowa State haven't really been following the topic closely enough.

(10-09-2014 09:45 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Let me fix it for you, bullet.
Texas, OU, Kansas are the only Big 12 schools.
UNC, UVA, Duke, Georgia Tech are the only ACC schools.
Missouri, TAMU, and Vandy are the only SEC schools.
ND obviously, but that ship has sailed.
Maybe UConn.

AAU is key...geographic expansion/markets are key...solid men's sports are key. I'm not saying the Big Ten can ever or will ever GET any of those...but if you're speculating, don't look anywhere else.

People floating Cincy and Pitt and NCSt and Iowa State haven't really been following the topic closely enough.

Pitt is a peer academically and Iowa St. is AAU and pretty solid. As I said, they would maybe be "filler" to even out if they got a good #15 or #17 but couldn't find a good 16 or 18. So they pass the academic hurdle. They just don't add much value.

I was responding to the post that talked about invitees not worrying about "culture" and that academic culture was important. My list is schools who might pass the bar for the academics to want to "associate" with.

Forgot about Missouri when making my list. Not sure they would want A&M. They easily pass the academic bar, but their conservative bent (they're probably the most conservative major state university in the country) and probation history might not appeal to the academics. Miami's "gangsta" sports reputation is why I put them at a maybe. They're one of the top rated non-AAU schools.

Now finances eliminates some of those schools-Vandy for instance.

Noticed you left off Florida. They are clearly an academic peer.

(I'm not saying any of the schools on this list would go if invited, merely that they might be on the list).

(10-09-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:11 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The length of the Big Ten's deal will be very telling. Do they go for a LONG-TERM deal like the SEC did? If so, that really will stabilize the landscape for the length of that deal.

Do they go for a SHORT-TERM deal (like 6-8 year) which would then put their expiration date SIMILAR to the other major conferences? Which would then set up another ARMAGEDDON realignment world in about 2021 or so.

I still don't think Missouri and UConn would be terrible additions for the Big Ten. UConn for hoops (and the BTN inventory during bball) and Missouri is solid for all-sports. I don't think those schools were plan A...but ever since Maryland was added, I don't think the Big Ten is overly obsessed with Plan A.

I always loved the Beatles song "Money Can't Buy Me Love". Well it can't buy wins, championships, or relevance either. Those are things that you earn, and the assets necessary to achieve them need to be on hand and within a reasonable radius of your operations.

I doubt seriously that the Big 10 is going to hook a Southern school South of North Carolina in the East and would be unlikely to get one South of Kansas in the West. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct then whether or not the Big 10 "hits the jackpot" is moot as there aren't any terrific recruiting grounds in terms of yield North of those areas. I agree with those who believe that the Big 10 would be best served by becoming the unquestioned king of basketball and simply look to being competitive in football with a handful of teams that could rise to challenge on any given year.

In spite of recent rumors Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, and Miami would not be served, or respected, in their own home markets by making a move North. Virginia and North Carolina may truly be cultural border states that could make such a move, but they don't see themselves fitting into the model of Big 10 schools.

Personally I think the best additions for the Big 10 would be Kansas and Connecticut. I realize that football first Big 10 fans would love to reunite Oklahoma and Nebraska or perhaps pick up Virginia Tech in the East, but to what point. Would the cutting off of more southerly recruiting ties with the Southwest and Southeast really benefit either of those football first schools? Probably not.

A Kansas school or Pittsburgh simply wouldn't sell in the SEC and such an affiliation would never really benefit them either, other than perhaps in the pocketbook. At some point the economy and finding your conference's natural niche is going to have to trump grand plans and schemes.

Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia/Virginia Tech, Duke and North Carolina all make some sense for the Big 10 as does Kansas. And at least some argument could be made for the benefits that those schools would receive in the Big 10.

Kentucky to the Big 10 speculation which I have heard on this board is ridiculous. Kentucky to the ACC a little less ridiculous except now the ACC has Louisville and doesn't need another Bluegrass school.

Missouri to the Big 10 is within the realm of reason, but doesn't make good economic sense for the Big 10 which is why I don't think they took them in the first place. In that regard Missouri is like T.C.U. and Kansas is like Oklahoma. Having the Jayhawks gains you Kansas City and parts of St. Louis like having Oklahoma gives you DFW. You don't need both and having both becomes an economic drain. Kansas is the better basketball and national brand.

Really any further realignment is going to be small and very precise. The Big 10, ACC, and SEC really have short lists of prospects that they would take in an eye blink. The PAC can be a little less choosy.

IMO the Big 10 would be better served at this point by maintaining its present strategy with Eastward expansion. They should try to expand into the beltway and lockdown New England and the Northeast.

The SEC needs to balance its power so expansion Westward really makes more sense from a stability standpoint. Markets however are better to the East. But at this point if the SEC doesn't shift some West power to the East it risks becoming a predominantly weak conference to the East and too much of a monster to the West.

The ACC needs another football strong school to bring a little more balance to their overall product.

The remaining need for the PAC is central time zones slot with which to increase the marketing of their product.

So none of the present rumors, or ideas about how much impact more money will make, or grand raid schemes by any conference, are anything more than imaginative jabs at your favorite punching bag. It really has reached a point where the next moves will be to fine tune markets and money while maintaining brand integrity. Anything that might go beyond that would be massive consolidation move that would only be mandated by the need for leverage and with compensation packages likely still on the assent I just don't see the negative motivation necessary to prompt such consolidation at this time.

As I've said before. I don't think Big Ten has to expand further to get mega money. Circumstances are falling perfectly in place for them. They made two moves that benefit BTN but the real payoff is from the fact that FS1 has zero NFL, NBA, NHL games, zero ACC and SEC game, zero NCAA Tournament games. They have some shared Big XII and Pac-12 content but lack the compelling content that is going to let them force cable into moving their carriage fee closer to ESPN's rate.

Do I think Big Ten would add a Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State? Yeah get the right pair knocking on the door the way TAMU did with the SEC and something probably happens and Kansas would be in the mix to play the Mizzou role in the deal.

But Big Ten doesn't have to do anything if the TV plays out the way it seems likely to.

The greater threat to stability isn't Big Ten taking schools, its Big Ten creating a big gap in finances and leagues reacting to try to narrow that gap again.

(10-09-2014 08:34 AM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  AAU status and the B10 is a red-herring requirement. Your gross research total is not nearly as important in an AAU bid as your percentage research and where you get the money for that research. No matter. You attempted a bid in 2010 with NC State and GT and were on the ballot so to speak. NC State was reputedly one vote shy of the 3/4ths needed.

AAU is not expanding in size, that means someone has to be kicked out like Nebraska or Syracuse for you to get an invite. GT and Boston U took their place.

AAU is an old boys club that exists for the purpose of lobbying Washington to keep the research award standards such that AAU universities get that money, that's all AAU really is, but folks get lost in the supposed glare of AAU glory.

Your last line about the AAU is why it is important to the Big 10 and also why it is not a strict requirement for Big 10 membership. The AAU is all about money and control. Those 60 US schools do about 60 percent of all the federally funded research in the country. More Big Ten schools means a greater say in that organization agenda and a larger percentage of the funds that the AAU secures.

Since it is about money and control, a school that would bring in enough money to Big 10 even though they are not AAU would be considered. Notre Dame is not AAU and the Big 10 tried to admit them. Nebraska's AAU membership first came under peril in the mid90's so anyone connected with AAU would of known they were getting kicked out. In fact some Big 10 schools more than likely voted against them. So what is the dollar amount necessary to overlook AAU membership? I don't know. I would guess it would have to be on the financial level of adding a Notre Dame, which there is no one , or Nebraska, so maybe Florida State, Oklahoma, or even Virginia Tech.

(10-09-2014 08:35 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:10 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:22 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  I think the culture aspect is way overstated. A lot of it is derived from Internet board fans saying they don't want to be in a northern conference or Midwestern conference or what not but Internet board fans don't matter. Joe Schmoe alumni don't matter either. The only way local culture matters is thru the high end boosters. Maryland fans and alumni hated the Big Ten move and any intouch administrator new that going in. That's why the move was done behind closed doors and got the approval of Kevin Plank, under armor CEO, and other high end boosters before it went thru. So the question is will any high end boosters at those schools reject a Big Ten move compared to their current location? I don't know.

Many of us Maryland grads and fans still hate the move to the Big Ten.

Yes because it reminds you of what Maryland really is.....a continuation of South Jersey.

Ocean City your little hangout is filled with people vacationing from PA an NJ. Penn State gear can be seen all over Federal Hill in Baltimore.

South Jersey is farm country, and large parts of it is similar to the Eastern Shore.

As for Ocean City, it markets itself as a family resort in the states of PA, NJ and NY. And it has been very successful.

With respect to Penn State, all I can say is there are no jobs in Pennsyltucky. The alumni go where the jobs are plentiful.

You'll find many students with funny northeastern accents at just about all of the large public and small private universities throughout the east coast and the midwest. Those public schools need our money to subsidize the low tuition that in-state students benefit from.

When I attended Maryland in the 1980s, it was a commuter school. Many of its students lived within driving distance of the school in the white suburbs of PG and Montgomery counties. Since whites have become a minority in both counties, the school has increased its acceptance of out-of-state students to 30 percent and has constructed facilities on the parking lots, located on the perimeter of the school, that used to serve the commuters.

(10-09-2014 10:17 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 06:19 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 02:11 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  The length of the Big Ten's deal will be very telling. Do they go for a LONG-TERM deal like the SEC did? If so, that really will stabilize the landscape for the length of that deal.

Do they go for a SHORT-TERM deal (like 6-8 year) which would then put their expiration date SIMILAR to the other major conferences? Which would then set up another ARMAGEDDON realignment world in about 2021 or so.

I still don't think Missouri and UConn would be terrible additions for the Big Ten. UConn for hoops (and the BTN inventory during bball) and Missouri is solid for all-sports. I don't think those schools were plan A...but ever since Maryland was added, I don't think the Big Ten is overly obsessed with Plan A.

I always loved the Beatles song "Money Can't Buy Me Love". Well it can't buy wins, championships, or relevance either. Those are things that you earn, and the assets necessary to achieve them need to be on hand and within a reasonable radius of your operations.

I doubt seriously that the Big 10 is going to hook a Southern school South of North Carolina in the East and would be unlikely to get one South of Kansas in the West. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct then whether or not the Big 10 "hits the jackpot" is moot as there aren't any terrific recruiting grounds in terms of yield North of those areas. I agree with those who believe that the Big 10 would be best served by becoming the unquestioned king of basketball and simply look to being competitive in football with a handful of teams that could rise to challenge on any given year.

In spite of recent rumors Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, and Miami would not be served, or respected, in their own home markets by making a move North. Virginia and North Carolina may truly be cultural border states that could make such a move, but they don't see themselves fitting into the model of Big 10 schools.

Personally I think the best additions for the Big 10 would be Kansas and Connecticut. I realize that football first Big 10 fans would love to reunite Oklahoma and Nebraska or perhaps pick up Virginia Tech in the East, but to what point. Would the cutting off of more southerly recruiting ties with the Southwest and Southeast really benefit either of those football first schools? Probably not.

A Kansas school or Pittsburgh simply wouldn't sell in the SEC and such an affiliation would never really benefit them either, other than perhaps in the pocketbook. At some point the economy and finding your conference's natural niche is going to have to trump grand plans and schemes.

Syracuse, Boston College, Virginia/Virginia Tech, Duke and North Carolina all make some sense for the Big 10 as does Kansas. And at least some argument could be made for the benefits that those schools would receive in the Big 10.

Kentucky to the Big 10 speculation which I have heard on this board is ridiculous. Kentucky to the ACC a little less ridiculous except now the ACC has Louisville and doesn't need another Bluegrass school.

Missouri to the Big 10 is within the realm of reason, but doesn't make good economic sense for the Big 10 which is why I don't think they took them in the first place. In that regard Missouri is like T.C.U. and Kansas is like Oklahoma. Having the Jayhawks gains you Kansas City and parts of St. Louis like having Oklahoma gives you DFW. You don't need both and having both becomes an economic drain. Kansas is the better basketball and national brand.

Really any further realignment is going to be small and very precise. The Big 10, ACC, and SEC really have short lists of prospects that they would take in an eye blink. The PAC can be a little less choosy.

IMO the Big 10 would be better served at this point by maintaining its present strategy with Eastward expansion. They should try to expand into the beltway and lockdown New England and the Northeast.

The SEC needs to balance its power so expansion Westward really makes more sense from a stability standpoint. Markets however are better to the East. But at this point if the SEC doesn't shift some West power to the East it risks becoming a predominantly weak conference to the East and too much of a monster to the West.

The ACC needs another football strong school to bring a little more balance to their overall product.

The remaining need for the PAC is central time zones slot with which to increase the marketing of their product.

So none of the present rumors, or ideas about how much impact more money will make, or grand raid schemes by any conference, are anything more than imaginative jabs at your favorite punching bag. It really has reached a point where the next moves will be to fine tune markets and money while maintaining brand integrity. Anything that might go beyond that would be massive consolidation move that would only be mandated by the need for leverage and with compensation packages likely still on the assent I just don't see the negative motivation necessary to prompt such consolidation at this time.

As I've said before. I don't think Big Ten has to expand further to get mega money. Circumstances are falling perfectly in place for them. They made two moves that benefit BTN but the real payoff is from the fact that FS1 has zero NFL, NBA, NHL games, zero ACC and SEC game, zero NCAA Tournament games. They have some shared Big XII and Pac-12 content but lack the compelling content that is going to let them force cable into moving their carriage fee closer to ESPN's rate.

Do I think Big Ten would add a Virginia, North Carolina, Duke, Georgia Tech, Florida State? Yeah get the right pair knocking on the door the way TAMU did with the SEC and something probably happens and Kansas would be in the mix to play the Mizzou role in the deal.

But Big Ten doesn't have to do anything if the TV plays out the way it seems likely to.

The greater threat to stability isn't Big Ten taking schools, its Big Ten creating a big gap in finances and leagues reacting to try to narrow that gap again.

The problem is what can be done to narrow that gap by the other P5's?

1) The AAC/B12 combining isn't going to have the per school value to do it. The ACC is the better situated conference academically and market wise. I guess the ACC could bring in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas as non-FB members and try to sell a sexy all sport network.

2) SEC is struggling to get North Carolina, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma or Texas interested in joining their football conference. Florida State might do it at this point. This sounds goofy to some but TCU might be in play because of the Dallas market and as a way to improve the academic perception of the conference.

3) The PAC could try to throw out another Texoma package BUT Utah and Colorado now they are in the conference want to protect their turf. The fact that the B1G is making so much money isn't a concern for them. Another possible option is to go with Texas and Oklahoma as non-FB members for a sexy all sport network.

Texas and Oklahoma are clearly outliers in their own conference and don't fit geographically into any of the other power conferences. I'm warming to option #3 because the PAC could use the most help associated with those schools and a partial schedule of 6 PAC games would be "Acceptable" where the ACC has a lot of smaller private schools that Texas wouldn't want to play at like BC, Duke and Wake.

Losing Texas and Oklahoma doesn't affect the B12 as a power conference with the equity the remaining schools have built over the years however it makes them as some as said into a quasi-Big East that would justify only 50% of the TV money as the others and effectively takes them out of play for the elite dollars.

(10-09-2014 10:26 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  The AAU is all about money and control. Those 60 US schools do about 60 percent of all the federally funded research in the country. More Big Ten schools means a greater say in that organization agenda and a larger percentage of the funds that the AAU secures.

Massive ignorance

(10-09-2014 10:34 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:35 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:10 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:22 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  I think the culture aspect is way overstated. A lot of it is derived from Internet board fans saying they don't want to be in a northern conference or Midwestern conference or what not but Internet board fans don't matter. Joe Schmoe alumni don't matter either. The only way local culture matters is thru the high end boosters. Maryland fans and alumni hated the Big Ten move and any intouch administrator new that going in. That's why the move was done behind closed doors and got the approval of Kevin Plank, under armor CEO, and other high end boosters before it went thru. So the question is will any high end boosters at those schools reject a Big Ten move compared to their current location? I don't know.

Many of us Maryland grads and fans still hate the move to the Big Ten.

Yes because it reminds you of what Maryland really is.....a continuation of South Jersey.

Ocean City your little hangout is filled with people vacationing from PA an NJ. Penn State gear can be seen all over Federal Hill in Baltimore.

South Jersey is farm country, and large parts of it is similar to the Eastern Shore.

As for Ocean City, it markets itself as a family resort in the states of PA, NJ and NY. And it has been very successful.

With respect to Penn State, all I can say is there are no jobs in Pennsyltucky. The alumni go where the jobs are plentiful.

You'll find many students with funny northeastern accents at just about all of the large public and small private universities throughout the east coast and the midwest. Those public schools need our money to subsidize the low tuition that in-state students benefit from.

When I attended Maryland in the 1980s, it was a commuter school. Many of its students lived within driving distance of the school in the white suburbs of PG and Montgomery counties. Since whites have become a minority in both counties, the school has increased its acceptance of out-of-state students to 30 percent and has constructed facilities on the parking lots, located on the perimeter of the school, that used to serve the commuters.

Very interesting your interpretation of the increase of out of state students to a high level to offset the demographic shifts of the area. I have a friend from Harrisburg who did exactly that and her parents have a place on Dewey Beach. Its very typical story of people from Eastern PA

Having US 1 go right through the middle of campus gives the campus a parking lot feel for sure. At one time the campus may have been more pretty before the growth of the area.

Because of the BTN, people assume that every B1G addition must bring a ton of cable households. That wasn't true with Nebraska, because adding Nebraska and going to 12 teams brought the championship game revenue.

I think if the B1G hits the "mega jackpot" with their cable TV deal, that gives them the flexibility to consider adding a team from a less populous state that will help with two of their biggest football problems (perceived conference strength, weakness of the West division compared to the East), which would be Oklahoma.

(10-09-2014 11:57 AM)krup Wrote:  Because of the BTN, people assume that every B1G addition must bring a ton of cable households. That wasn't true with Nebraska, because adding Nebraska and going to 12 teams brought the championship game revenue.

I think if the B1G hits the "mega jackpot" with their cable TV deal, that gives them the flexibility to consider adding a team from a less populous state that will help with two of their biggest football problems (perceived conference strength, weakness of the West division compared to the East), which would be Oklahoma.

Nah.

The B1G should concentrate on basketball where it has a chance by adding Kansas and UConn to make it into a must watch TV product.

Then teams like Nebraska an Penn State have another easy FB win on the schedule to pad records. Its about getting schools in that will maximize Nebraska and Penn State for the conference.

Krup, I think you have it backwards though. The expansion comes BEFORE the mega-deal...or it doesn't come at all. Once the deal is signed, then you simply rake in the cash for your current members. You are no longer looking to expand for the immediate future (5-10 years), unless the landscape suddenly shifts unexpectedly (which nobody really thinks it will, with GORs and other TV deals and whatnot).

Your logic does make sense though...but OU has to be careful...its recruiting and population base is in Texas more than anywhere else. Coming north alone (without UT as a partner) might be a risky proposition.

(10-09-2014 12:26 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Krup, I think you have it backwards though. The expansion comes BEFORE the mega-deal...or it doesn't come at all. Once the deal is signed, then you simply rake in the cash for your current members. You are no longer looking to expand for the immediate future (5-10 years), unless the landscape suddenly shifts unexpectedly (which nobody really thinks it will, with GORs and other TV deals and whatnot).

Your logic does make sense though...but OU has to be careful...its recruiting and population base is in Texas more than anywhere else. Coming north alone (without UT as a partner) might be a risky proposition.

I understand your point, but I guess being a fan of a former Big East school that lived through ESPN (allegedly) coordinating ACC raids on that conference, I am more cynical about what can be arranged with the networks.

It wouldn't shock me if the B1G signed a new deal with a network that paid X dollars per school, with an "understanding" that the network would also pay X dollars for certain future additions, if they happened.

(10-09-2014 11:08 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:26 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  The AAU is all about money and control. Those 60 US schools do about 60 percent of all the federally funded research in the country. More Big Ten schools means a greater say in that organization agenda and a larger percentage of the funds that the AAU secures.

Massive ignorance

Please explain

(10-09-2014 01:19 PM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:08 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:26 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  The AAU is all about money and control. Those 60 US schools do about 60 percent of all the federally funded research in the country. More Big Ten schools means a greater say in that organization agenda and a larger percentage of the funds that the AAU secures.

Massive ignorance

Please explain

When someone makes a statement of fact that is total baseless, like claiming the AAU is some sort of cabal that controls federal research funding or the Big Ten schools would somehow benefit by stacking AAU membership, it outs a person of having a thorough lack of knowledge on the topic of academic research funding, the AAU, research consortiums and academic collaborations, and really, general realignment issues.

The fallacy of these message board-derived myths has been discussed literally dozens of time on this board.

(10-09-2014 11:02 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  3) The PAC could try to throw out another Texoma package BUT Utah and Colorado now they are in the conference want to protect their turf. The fact that the B1G is making so much money isn't a concern for them. Another possible option is to go with Texas and Oklahoma as non-FB members for a sexy all sport network.

One thing about money. A lot of people have no real use for the money they earn because they have more than enough to buy or do anything they want, but they are competitive people by nature and money is the scoreboard that tells them whether they are winning or losing.

No one wants to be second, third, fourth or fifth and if the gap is big university CEO's who are answering to boards, politicians, alumni and boosters who want to know why that idiot commissioner has such a bad TV deal compared to the Big 10 are going to be asking that idiot commissioner to fix the problem.

(10-09-2014 01:31 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 01:19 PM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 11:08 AM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:26 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  The AAU is all about money and control. Those 60 US schools do about 60 percent of all the federally funded research in the country. More Big Ten schools means a greater say in that organization agenda and a larger percentage of the funds that the AAU secures.

Massive ignorance

Please explain

When someone makes a statement of fact that is total baseless, like claiming the AAU is some sort of cabal that controls federal research funding or the Big Ten schools would somehow benefit by stacking AAU membership, it outs a person of having a thorough lack of knowledge on the topic of academic research funding, the AAU, research consortiums and academic collaborations, and really, general realignment issues.

The fallacy of these message board-derived myths has been discussed literally dozens of time on this board.

Well according to their own website, 57.7% of all federal research funds go to AAU schools. http://www.aau.edu/WorkArea/DownloadAsse...?id=13460. That's about 60%.

As far as stacking the membership: it's just kind of basic logic. Why would the Big 10 be adamant about members being AAU if there wasn't some tangible benefit. In a organization of 62 schools, if 14 all vote one way and decisions are made on a 3/4 or 2/3 basis, i would think that those 14 as one could have an impact on the direction the AAU takes. But I am sure politics play no role in AAU voting.

Since I am ignorant of research funding, please explain why the Big 10 wants AAU schools?

(10-09-2014 11:15 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 10:34 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:35 AM)Kittonhead Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 08:10 AM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(10-09-2014 07:22 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  I think the culture aspect is way overstated. A lot of it is derived from Internet board fans saying they don't want to be in a northern conference or Midwestern conference or what not but Internet board fans don't matter. Joe Schmoe alumni don't matter either. The only way local culture matters is thru the high end boosters. Maryland fans and alumni hated the Big Ten move and any intouch administrator new that going in. That's why the move was done behind closed doors and got the approval of Kevin Plank, under armor CEO, and other high end boosters before it went thru. So the question is will any high end boosters at those schools reject a Big Ten move compared to their current location? I don't know.

Many of us Maryland grads and fans still hate the move to the Big Ten.

Yes because it reminds you of what Maryland really is.....a continuation of South Jersey.

Ocean City your little hangout is filled with people vacationing from PA an NJ. Penn State gear can be seen all over Federal Hill in Baltimore.

South Jersey is farm country, and large parts of it is similar to the Eastern Shore.

As for Ocean City, it markets itself as a family resort in the states of PA, NJ and NY. And it has been very successful.

With respect to Penn State, all I can say is there are no jobs in Pennsyltucky. The alumni go where the jobs are plentiful.

You'll find many students with funny northeastern accents at just about all of the large public and small private universities throughout the east coast and the midwest. Those public schools need our money to subsidize the low tuition that in-state students benefit from.

When I attended Maryland in the 1980s, it was a commuter school. Many of its students lived within driving distance of the school in the white suburbs of PG and Montgomery counties. Since whites have become a minority in both counties, the school has increased its acceptance of out-of-state students to 30 percent and has constructed facilities on the parking lots, located on the perimeter of the school, that used to serve the commuters.

Very interesting your interpretation of the increase of out of state students to a high level to offset the demographic shifts of the area. I have a friend from Harrisburg who did exactly that and her parents have a place on Dewey Beach. Its very typical story of people from Eastern PA

Having US 1 go right through the middle of campus gives the campus a parking lot feel for sure. At one time the campus may have been more pretty before the growth of the area.

The demographic change occurring in Montgomery County has been swift. The Wash Post published an article last week revealing that white children account for only 29 percent of kindergartners in the public school system. Hispanic children represent 33 percent. That's a pretty astonishing change. African-American children still are the majority in Prince George's County, but the Hispanic population is growing rapidly.

The Wash Post also has published articles stating that non-Asian minority students are failing academically in large numbers. So I wouldn't be surprised if the University of Maryland raised the out-of-state student quota to 40 percent, which, I believe, is the limit at some of the Big Ten schools.