(10-16-2015 11:59 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Careful, the ACC Mob is going to come in and get a third thread closed today due to your blatant attacks on The ACC.

Come on man, is that necessary?

He's just angry because his halo is showing more tarnish. You can only play the game for so long until it gets boring and stale for everyone. Heinous is basically the "She Bang" guy...

(10-16-2015 09:03 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The B1G doesn't always make moves that pan out like they want. Nebraska has been a big disappointment, they've been diminished by the league, haven't added much to it, and the jury is still out on the competitive impact of Rutgers and Maryland.

But they did get the One Big Thing, the money issue, right, and moreso than anyone else. Back in the crucial 2007-2010 years, Delany made the right decisions about a conference network that Swofford and Slive bungled, and that has put the B1G in clearly in the strongest position of any conference, so I wouldn't be really surprised by anything they do to expand their reach.

The Big Ten whiffed on its original and biggest targets in 2010, Texas and ND.

Jim Delany swung for the fences like Dave Kingman and struck out like Dave Kingman.

No blame here. Nice try, Jim.

Everything since then is "Plan B", although Delany has done well with the BTN money in his back pocket.


http://frankthetank.me/tag/notre-dame-to-the-big-ten/

https://kentsterling.wordpress.com/2010/...xt-target/

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry...2/21083956


http://www.sj-r.com/article/20100226/NEW...1/?Start=3

Should've used the "Mighty Casey" metaphor, it'd have been cooler.

(10-16-2015 01:37 PM)jaredf29 Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:03 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 08:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The B1G doesn't always make moves that pan out like they want. Nebraska has been a big disappointment, they've been diminished by the league, haven't added much to it, and the jury is still out on the competitive impact of Rutgers and Maryland.

But they did get the One Big Thing, the money issue, right, and moreso than anyone else. Back in the crucial 2007-2010 years, Delany made the right decisions about a conference network that Swofford and Slive bungled, and that has put the B1G in clearly in the strongest position of any conference, so I wouldn't be really surprised by anything they do to expand their reach.

The Big Ten whiffed on its original and biggest targets in 2010, Texas and ND.

Jim Delany swung for the fences like Dave Kingman and struck out like Dave Kingman.

No blame here. Nice try, Jim.

Everything since then is "Plan B", although Delany has done well with the BTN money in his back pocket.


http://frankthetank.me/tag/notre-dame-to-the-big-ten/

https://kentsterling.wordpress.com/2010/...xt-target/

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry...2/21083956


http://www.sj-r.com/article/20100226/NEW...1/?Start=3

Should've used the "Mighty Casey" metaphor, it'd have been cooler.

King Kong was cool, man. He struck out much more than Casey and he was real.....

(10-16-2015 09:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 06:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:38 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  B1G is playing chess while everyone else is playing ckeckers. Why everyone was scratching their heads about the Rutgers and Mayland adds, now it all makes sense plus why they added John Hopkins lacrosse as an associate member. Once the Maryland suit is settled why it means big problems for the future survival of the ACC, now it all makes sense. Best analysis, I ever read on realignment. ESPN isn't running this train, B1G El Presidente's are. It's the R&D dollars and political power under the guise of sports alignment.


Link

No. B1G expansion was based on the following

1) Penn State's desire to kick out/ keep out the ACC from its prime recruiting grounds.
2) the current ability of B1G teams to make people in the NYC/DC metros pay outsized amounts to the B1G in order to receive any cable programming.


Political power has been shifting away from the Mid Atlantic and Industrial MW for decades. If that was the play, they likely blew it.

Tom, we all know how much you *hate* Rutgers getting into the B1G. That's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion.


But your last sentence doesn't make much sense.

I actually wish political power wasn't shifting away from the MidAtlantic and Industrial MW...

But it is...

To the South and West, with population.

---

I just don't see it as making any sense. Rutgers provided bad/mediocre football and awful mens basketball to the Big East. I fail to see how Rutgers can provide much of value to the B1G. Especially since they blew chunks for the Big East. Good women's basketball though..

And I don't believe that B1G membership really means much, academically. There are two top tier schools in the B1G (Michigan and Northwestern). The rest of the schools are good, but not omg good. Half the SEC would fit in nicely academically in the B1G. If anything, the SEC schools are catching up with the B1G schools. Part of that is simple demographics. But if the B1G was some sort of academic superpower, one would think that you'd see the distance between the B1G institutions and SEC/Big XII institutions start to widen over the last couple of decades. Not seeing it.

Not a SEC grad btw.

The B1G is, along with the PAC and the SEC, a terminal conference. What that means is that teams never leave.

The B1G has done a great job with leveraging their markets into making people who don't care about football pay them lots of money in order to get cable. That model has a limited future.

(10-16-2015 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 09:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-15-2015 06:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:38 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  B1G is playing chess while everyone else is playing ckeckers. Why everyone was scratching their heads about the Rutgers and Mayland adds, now it all makes sense plus why they added John Hopkins lacrosse as an associate member. Once the Maryland suit is settled why it means big problems for the future survival of the ACC, now it all makes sense. Best analysis, I ever read on realignment. ESPN isn't running this train, B1G El Presidente's are. It's the R&D dollars and political power under the guise of sports alignment.


Link

No. B1G expansion was based on the following

1) Penn State's desire to kick out/ keep out the ACC from its prime recruiting grounds.
2) the current ability of B1G teams to make people in the NYC/DC metros pay outsized amounts to the B1G in order to receive any cable programming.


Political power has been shifting away from the Mid Atlantic and Industrial MW for decades. If that was the play, they likely blew it.

Tom, we all know how much you *hate* Rutgers getting into the B1G. That's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion.


But your last sentence doesn't make much sense.

I actually wish political power wasn't shifting away from the MidAtlantic and Industrial MW...

But it is...

To the South and West, with population.

---

I just don't see it as making any sense. Rutgers provided bad/mediocre football and awful mens basketball to the Big East. I fail to see how Rutgers can provide much of value to the B1G. Especially since they blew chunks for the Big East. Good women's basketball though..

And I don't believe that B1G membership really means much, academically. There are two top tier schools in the B1G (Michigan and Northwestern). The rest of the schools are good, but not omg good. Half the SEC would fit in nicely academically in the B1G. If anything, the SEC schools are catching up with the B1G schools. Part of that is simple demographics. But if the B1G was some sort of academic superpower, one would think that you'd see the distance between the B1G institutions and SEC/Big XII institutions start to widen over the last couple of decades. Not seeing it.

Not a SEC grad btw.

The B1G is, along with the PAC and the SEC, a terminal conference. What that means is that teams never leave.

The B1G has done a great job with leveraging their markets into making people who don't care about football pay them lots of money in order to get cable. That model has a limited future.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I just happen to disagree with yours.

By gaining Nebraska, New Jersey and Maryland, they've gain six Senators and however many Congressmen.


As far as "academics" goes, that is a loaded word. It has no sharp definition and is impossible to quantify or assess in a fair manner. Anyone can twist it to fit his/her agenda.

What is much easier to quantify and assess is research. The B1G is the hands down best research conference. Northwestern is pretty good in research, but not elite. Michigan is #1 and Wisconsin is #3. Minnesota and Penn St are high up as well.

Rutgers is almost top 25 after adding in the med/dental school of NJ. Maryland would be almost top 10 by including the U of MD med school (in Baltimore). Nebraska will be up to standard once they include the U of NE med school.

The Big 3 in the ACC to watch out for are Clemson, Florida State and Georgia Tech. They have been known to be not too happy with the ACC right now. Even people at Florida State that are in power mentioned Big 12 a few times. Those 3 could bolt and challenge the GORs issue if the TV contract is not what they wanted, but for it being less. If those three starts causing issues with the ACC, how many schools will run to the Big 10? There seems to be not a market for the ACC schools because of leaches in football like Duke and Wake Forest that is bringing the others down. Miami Florida is becoming a leach since they have lost a lot of fan support and tv viewers in recent years that UCF is catching them up on.

Florida State, UCF, Cincinnati and Memphis to the Big 12 along with BYU and Boise State to make a Big 12 16 school conference.

Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia to the Big 10 to make 18.

Virginia Tech and NC State to the SEC.

ACC would be left with Notre Dame, Syracuse, Miami, Duke, Pitt, Boston College and Wake Forest.

Big 10 could go and get NAVY and Notre Dame to make it 20.

ACC will be Syracuse, Miami, Duke, Pitt, Boston College and Wake Forest.
They add Army, UConn, U.Mass., Temple, East Carolina, UAB, Villanova, and Georgetown.

AAC will be down to Tulane, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, USF, They will add Marshall, Southern Mississippi, Georgia State, Toledo, Northern Illinois, James Madison, Old Dominion, Arkansas State and Delaware.

Sun Belt would be raided by C-USA, and Sun Belt raids FCS schools in the area.

MWC will raid the Big Sky since they do not want Idaho and New Mexico State.

(10-15-2015 06:31 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-14-2015 07:38 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  B1G is playing chess while everyone else is playing ckeckers. Why everyone was scratching their heads about the Rutgers and Mayland adds, now it all makes sense plus why they added John Hopkins lacrosse as an associate member. Once the Maryland suit is settled why it means big problems for the future survival of the ACC, now it all makes sense. Best analysis, I ever read on realignment. ESPN isn't running this train, B1G El Presidente's are. It's the R&D dollars and political power under the guise of sports alignment.


Link

No. B1G expansion was based on the following

1) Penn State's desire to kick out/ keep out the ACC from its prime recruiting grounds.
2) the current ability of B1G teams to make people in the NYC/DC metros pay outsized amounts to the B1G in order to receive any cable programming.


Political power has been shifting away from the Mid Atlantic and Industrial MW for decades. If that was the play, they likely blew it.

While the Mid-Atlantic isn't growing as fast as parts of the south, population-wise, I believe it's hard to argue the 'political power' has shifted. The Mid-Atlantic corridor between DC and NYC is the most densely populated area of the US, the most economically vital, and the most politically powerful region in the country. Not saying other regions aren't important, but the Mid-Atlantic has control of the federal government, foreign relations, top economic center, the highest number of big business headquarters (including the entertainment TV giants...Comcast in Philly - Fox/ESPN in NYC -- not to mention sponsorship potential from other companies), dense populations, etc.

The Big10 made the right move by moving into this area as it benefits them politically, economically, and gives them alumni working in the most powerful sectors that impact the conference.

(10-16-2015 07:26 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The Big 3 in the ACC to watch out for are Clemson, Florida State and Georgia Tech. They have been known to be not too happy with the ACC right now. Even people at Florida State that are in power mentioned Big 12 a few times. Those 3 could bolt and challenge the GORs issue if the TV contract is not what they wanted, but for it being less. If those three starts causing issues with the ACC, how many schools will run to the Big 10? There seems to be not a market for the ACC schools because of leaches in football like Duke and Wake Forest that is bringing the others down. Miami Florida is becoming a leach since they have lost a lot of fan support and tv viewers in recent years that UCF is catching them up on.

Florida State, UCF, Cincinnati and Memphis to the Big 12 along with BYU and Boise State to make a Big 12 16 school conference.

Georgia Tech, Clemson, North Carolina and Virginia to the Big 10 to make 18.

Virginia Tech and NC State to the SEC.

ACC would be left with Notre Dame, Syracuse, Miami, Duke, Pitt, Boston College and Wake Forest.

Big 10 could go and get NAVY and Notre Dame to make it 20.

ACC will be Syracuse, Miami, Duke, Pitt, Boston College and Wake Forest.
They add Army, UConn, U.Mass., Temple, East Carolina, UAB, Villanova, and Georgetown.

AAC will be down to Tulane, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, USF, They will add Marshall, Southern Mississippi, Georgia State, Toledo, Northern Illinois, James Madison, Old Dominion, Arkansas State and Delaware.

Sun Belt would be raided by C-USA, and Sun Belt raids FCS schools in the area.

MWC will raid the Big Sky since they do not want Idaho and New Mexico State.

I see that among your many baseless fantasies that you have added ND to the Big 10.

Stick with G5 fantasies, David.

Wow, dug up a two year old piece and tried to pass it off as relevant. Awesome work. New level of troll.

(10-16-2015 08:20 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Wow, dug up a two year old piece and tried to pass it off as relevant. Awesome work. New level of troll.

Well, that's because there is a new level of gullible on the board these days. Which came first the Troll or the Sucker?

(10-16-2015 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And I don't believe that B1G membership really means much, academically. There are two top tier schools in the B1G (Michigan and Northwestern). The rest of the schools are good, but not omg good. Half the SEC would fit in nicely academically in the B1G.

Yes, which, being true, will naturally be reflected when people who don't care half a grain of rice about college athletic conference rank the schools.

So when you look at the AWRU from Shanghai, its easy to see that the top seven schools slide right into the Big Ten (numbers are their world rankings):
#22, That School Up North
#24, Wisconsin
#27t, Northwestern
#29, Illinois
#30, Minnesota
#43, Maryland
#53, Vanderbilt
#60, Penn State
#61, Purdue
#64, Rutgers
#67, tOSU
#83, Florida
#99, MSU
#100, Texas A&M
#101-150: Indiana
#150-200: Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee,
#201-300: Alabama, Kentucky, LSU, Nebraska, South Carolina,
#301-400: Mizzou
#401-500: Auburn, Arkansas

Seems like we could be more precise than "the top half of the SEC would fit into the Big Ten", and say, "the best school in the SEC would fit comfortably with the top half of the Big Ten, and the rest of the top half would fit comfortable with the bottom half of the Big Ten."

(10-16-2015 08:36 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And I don't believe that B1G membership really means much, academically. There are two top tier schools in the B1G (Michigan and Northwestern). The rest of the schools are good, but not omg good. Half the SEC would fit in nicely academically in the B1G.

Yes, which, being true, will naturally be reflected when people who don't care half a grain of rice about college athletic conference rank the schools.

So when you look at the AWRU from Shanghai, its easy to see that the top seven schools slide right into the Big Ten (numbers are their world rankings):
#22, That School Up North
#24, Wisconsin
#27t, Northwestern
#29, Illinois
#30, Minnesota
#43, Maryland
#53, Vanderbilt
#60, Penn State
#61, Purdue
#64, Rutgers
#67, tOSU
#83, Florida
#99, MSU
#100, Texas A&M
#101-150: Indiana
#150-200: Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee,
#201-300: Alabama, Kentucky, LSU, Nebraska, South Carolina,
#301-400: Mizzou
#401-500: Auburn, Arkansas

Seems like we could be more precise than "the top half of the SEC would fit into the Big Ten", and say, "the best school in the SEC would fit comfortably with the top half of the Big Ten, and the rest of the top half would fit comfortable with the bottom half of the Big Ten."

Houston #200-300 B1G here we come! Whew Who!

(10-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 08:20 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Wow, dug up a two year old piece and tried to pass it off as relevant. Awesome work. New level of troll.

Well, that's because there is a new level of gullible on the board these days. Which came first the Troll or the Sucker?

Plus what is in the news on which schools are not happy in which conference also spewing these debates on who could leave. Both the ACC and the Big 12 are not stable in a long run. Neither conferences have a Conference Network, and those three are falling behind on the big payday payouts. ACC is behind on the Big 12 on how much schools get each year.

(10-16-2015 08:24 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 08:20 PM)Rabbit_in_Red Wrote:  Wow, dug up a two year old piece and tried to pass it off as relevant. Awesome work. New level of troll.

Well, that's because there is a new level of gullible on the board these days. Which came first the Troll or the Sucker?

All of this make my fingers itchy to play...

(10-16-2015 08:36 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And I don't believe that B1G membership really means much, academically. There are two top tier schools in the B1G (Michigan and Northwestern). The rest of the schools are good, but not omg good. Half the SEC would fit in nicely academically in the B1G.

Yes, which, being true, will naturally be reflected when people who don't care half a grain of rice about college athletic conference rank the schools.

So when you look at the AWRU from Shanghai, its easy to see that the top seven schools slide right into the Big Ten (numbers are their world rankings):
#22, That School Up North
#24, Wisconsin
#27t, Northwestern
#29, Illinois
#30, Minnesota
#43, Maryland
#53, Vanderbilt
#60, Penn State
#61, Purdue
#64, Rutgers
#67, tOSU
#83, Florida
#99, MSU
#100, Texas A&M
#101-150: Indiana
#150-200: Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee,
#201-300: Alabama, Kentucky, LSU, Nebraska, South Carolina,
#301-400: Mizzou
#401-500: Auburn, Arkansas

Seems like we could be more precise than "the top half of the SEC would fit into the Big Ten", and say, "the best school in the SEC would fit comfortably with the top half of the Big Ten, and the rest of the top half would fit comfortable with the bottom half of the Big Ten."

The top half of the SEC would fit really nicely into the B1G academically. In the latest round of expansion, the B1G took a team as per the USNWR rankings, is third behind Georgetown and GW in academic ranking the DC metro (and is barely beating out American). They then took a team that pulls up with a big bad 72. Prior to that they took a school with a sinking academic reputation.

12) Northwestern
15) Vandy
---
29) Michigan
41) Illinois
41) Wisconsin
47) Florida
47) Penn State
---
52) Ohio State
57) Maryland
61) Georgia
61) Purdue
---
69) Minnesota
70) Texas A&M
72) Rutgers
75) Michigan State
75) Indiana
82) Iowa
---
96) Alabama
102) Auburn
103) Missouri
103) Nebraska
103) Tennessee
108) So. Carolina
---
129) LSU
129) Kentucky
---
140) Ole Miss
161) Miss State

I'm not trying to argue that the SEC is better academically than the B1G. It isn't. But the B1G ain't the Ivy. It ain't the UAA either (which is the only other academic conference). The moves the league has made were not based upon academics, nor will it make the conference any more prominent than it is.

And if you looked at where some of these SEC schools were 10 years ago versus the B1G teams, or 20 years ago... you'd see that many of the SEC teams are climbing on you guys. Do I think they'll pass the B1G. No, for a variety of reasons. But this "B1G is an academic conference" stuff is pretty much nonsense.

Is Rutgers or UMCP a top university? Not really. Nor are they ever likely to break into that club.

Rutgers and UMCP are in the B1G because Penn State would rather kick the ACC out of its yard and the BTN wanted to see if they can force people in the DC and NYC metros to pay premium prices for B1G programming they don't care about in order to get any cable service.

Rutgers did nothing with its upgrade to the Big East. Its unlikely they'll do anything with their upgrade to the B1G.

UMCP? I'm just not seeing it contribute that much on an athletic basis either.

----

There's the P5 and then there's the B1G, the PAC and the SEC.

What did the conferences do relative to each other.

1) The B1G added laggard academic institutions (compared with the league without them) with mediocre to bad athletic teams in large markets that those schools largely don't carry. For Nebraska, its laggard academics and average athletics (recent history) combined with a small state market that they definitely carry.

2) The PAC added a comparable/better and a laggard academic institution with some mediocre athletics in state sized markets that those schools largely carry.

3) The SEC added marginally better academic institutions with average athletics in large state sized markets that those schools definitely carry.

---

On academics, the B1G didn't help themselves, but neither did the PAC. The SEC did, but only marginally.

On athletics, no one really helped themselves that much. If anyone was helped, it was probably the SEC

On market sizes, B1G wins, then the SEC coming in closely behind, with the PAC just working smaller numbers

On fan support x market size, the SEC wins handily, the PAC comes in second and the B1G is in the rear.

---

There's a reason that no one has to put up threads defending the SEC or PAC12's decisions in realignment...because no one really can fault their decision making.

The B1G left everyone scratching their heads and has to come up with second derivative secret plots to try to justify it.

The B1G is a great conference. But they blew it here IMHO.

Nobodies on the internet saying that the business experts that all were part of The Big Ten's expansion didn't know what they were doing and failed miserably.

Don't be an idiot. Just, don't be an idiot and even worse....a longwinded idiot.

Trying to say that Colorado and Utah are overwhelmingly better adds than Maryland and Rutgers. Idiotic. Texas A&M literally fell in the SEC's lap and they took Missouri as a complement to help further destabilize the big 12. Missouri was The Big Ten's brush off. Oh...but you know better?

Obviously not. It is pathetic how some Southerners have this "need" to attack whatever "The Great Northern Devil" does. Truly pathetic.

Let me just add this one last thing. Fan Support is the easiest thing to improve, that isn't saying that it is easy but it is certainly easier than building up a market or building up Academics. So arguing that The Big Ten should have taken momentary present day Fan Support into equal consideration as markets and academics? Idiotic.

(10-17-2015 12:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The top half of the SEC would fit really nicely into the B1G academically. In the latest round of expansion, the B1G took a team as per the USNWR rankings, ...

So? What does the USNWR rankings have to do with this conversation?

I understand they are the easiest to use, because of their wide availability, but that's like looking for your keys under the streetlight instead of where you dropped them, because there's more light under the streetlight. The USNWR rankings are not about academic status, they are about recruiting undergraduate students to help pay for research professors and graduate school education.

(10-17-2015 12:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 08:36 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And I don't believe that B1G membership really means much, academically. There are two top tier schools in the B1G (Michigan and Northwestern). The rest of the schools are good, but not omg good. Half the SEC would fit in nicely academically in the B1G.

Yes, which, being true, will naturally be reflected when people who don't care half a grain of rice about college athletic conference rank the schools.

So when you look at the AWRU from Shanghai, its easy to see that the top seven schools slide right into the Big Ten (numbers are their world rankings):
#22, That School Up North
#24, Wisconsin
#27t, Northwestern
#29, Illinois
#30, Minnesota
#43, Maryland
#53, Vanderbilt
#60, Penn State
#61, Purdue
#64, Rutgers
#67, tOSU
#83, Florida
#99, MSU
#100, Texas A&M
#101-150: Indiana
#150-200: Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee,
#201-300: Alabama, Kentucky, LSU, Nebraska, South Carolina,
#301-400: Mizzou
#401-500: Auburn, Arkansas

Seems like we could be more precise than "the top half of the SEC would fit into the Big Ten", and say, "the best school in the SEC would fit comfortably with the top half of the Big Ten, and the rest of the top half would fit comfortable with the bottom half of the Big Ten."

The top half of the SEC would fit really nicely into the B1G academically. In the latest round of expansion, the B1G took a team as per the USNWR rankings, is third behind Georgetown and GW in academic ranking the DC metro (and is barely beating out American). They then took a team that pulls up with a big bad 72. Prior to that they took a school with a sinking academic reputation.

12) Northwestern
15) Vandy
---
29) Michigan
41) Illinois
41) Wisconsin
47) Florida
47) Penn State
---
52) Ohio State
57) Maryland
61) Georgia
61) Purdue
---
69) Minnesota
70) Texas A&M
72) Rutgers
75) Michigan State
75) Indiana
82) Iowa
---
96) Alabama
102) Auburn
103) Missouri
103) Nebraska
103) Tennessee
108) So. Carolina
---
129) LSU
129) Kentucky
---
140) Ole Miss
161) Miss State

I'm not trying to argue that the SEC is better academically than the B1G. It isn't. But the B1G ain't the Ivy. It ain't the UAA either (which is the only other academic conference). The moves the league has made were not based upon academics, nor will it make the conference any more prominent than it is.

And if you looked at where some of these SEC schools were 10 years ago versus the B1G teams, or 20 years ago... you'd see that many of the SEC teams are climbing on you guys. Do I think they'll pass the B1G. No, for a variety of reasons. But this "B1G is an academic conference" stuff is pretty much nonsense.

Is Rutgers or UMCP a top university? Not really. Nor are they ever likely to break into that club.

Rutgers and UMCP are in the B1G because Penn State would rather kick the ACC out of its yard and the BTN wanted to see if they can force people in the DC and NYC metros to pay premium prices for B1G programming they don't care about in order to get any cable service.

Rutgers did nothing with its upgrade to the Big East. Its unlikely they'll do anything with their upgrade to the B1G.

UMCP? I'm just not seeing it contribute that much on an athletic basis either.

----

There's the P5 and then there's the B1G, the PAC and the SEC.

What did the conferences do relative to each other.

1) The B1G added laggard academic institutions (compared with the league without them) with mediocre to bad athletic teams in large markets that those schools largely don't carry. For Nebraska, its laggard academics and average athletics (recent history) combined with a small state market that they definitely carry.

2) The PAC added a comparable/better and a laggard academic institution with some mediocre athletics in state sized markets that those schools largely carry.

3) The SEC added marginally better academic institutions with average athletics in large state sized markets that those schools definitely carry.

---

On academics, the B1G didn't help themselves, but neither did the PAC. The SEC did, but only marginally.

On athletics, no one really helped themselves that much. If anyone was helped, it was probably the SEC

On market sizes, B1G wins, then the SEC coming in closely behind, with the PAC just working smaller numbers

On fan support x market size, the SEC wins handily, the PAC comes in second and the B1G is in the rear.

---

There's a reason that no one has to put up threads defending the SEC or PAC12's decisions in realignment...because no one really can fault their decision making.

The B1G left everyone scratching their heads and has to come up with second derivative secret plots to try to justify it.

The B1G is a great conference. But they blew it here IMHO.

"The top half of the SEC would fit really nicely into the B1G academically. "


There's that loaded, useless word again. "Academics". Its definition is completely made up, and varies depending on whomever you ask.

You can't prove anything, using that word.


Research is the only aspect of higher education that is easily quantified in a meaningful, objective way.

(10-18-2015 10:02 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-17-2015 12:28 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 08:36 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And I don't believe that B1G membership really means much, academically. There are two top tier schools in the B1G (Michigan and Northwestern). The rest of the schools are good, but not omg good. Half the SEC would fit in nicely academically in the B1G.

Yes, which, being true, will naturally be reflected when people who don't care half a grain of rice about college athletic conference rank the schools.

So when you look at the AWRU from Shanghai, its easy to see that the top seven schools slide right into the Big Ten (numbers are their world rankings):
#22, That School Up North
#24, Wisconsin
#27t, Northwestern
#29, Illinois
#30, Minnesota
#43, Maryland
#53, Vanderbilt
#60, Penn State
#61, Purdue
#64, Rutgers
#67, tOSU
#83, Florida
#99, MSU
#100, Texas A&M
#101-150: Indiana
#150-200: Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee,
#201-300: Alabama, Kentucky, LSU, Nebraska, South Carolina,
#301-400: Mizzou
#401-500: Auburn, Arkansas

Seems like we could be more precise than "the top half of the SEC would fit into the Big Ten", and say, "the best school in the SEC would fit comfortably with the top half of the Big Ten, and the rest of the top half would fit comfortable with the bottom half of the Big Ten."

The top half of the SEC would fit really nicely into the B1G academically. In the latest round of expansion, the B1G took a team as per the USNWR rankings, is third behind Georgetown and GW in academic ranking the DC metro (and is barely beating out American). They then took a team that pulls up with a big bad 72. Prior to that they took a school with a sinking academic reputation.

12) Northwestern
15) Vandy
---
29) Michigan
41) Illinois
41) Wisconsin
47) Florida
47) Penn State
---
52) Ohio State
57) Maryland
61) Georgia
61) Purdue
---
69) Minnesota
70) Texas A&M
72) Rutgers
75) Michigan State
75) Indiana
82) Iowa
---
96) Alabama
102) Auburn
103) Missouri
103) Nebraska
103) Tennessee
108) So. Carolina
---
129) LSU
129) Kentucky
---
140) Ole Miss
161) Miss State

I'm not trying to argue that the SEC is better academically than the B1G. It isn't. But the B1G ain't the Ivy. It ain't the UAA either (which is the only other academic conference). The moves the league has made were not based upon academics, nor will it make the conference any more prominent than it is.

And if you looked at where some of these SEC schools were 10 years ago versus the B1G teams, or 20 years ago... you'd see that many of the SEC teams are climbing on you guys. Do I think they'll pass the B1G. No, for a variety of reasons. But this "B1G is an academic conference" stuff is pretty much nonsense.

Is Rutgers or UMCP a top university? Not really. Nor are they ever likely to break into that club.

Rutgers and UMCP are in the B1G because Penn State would rather kick the ACC out of its yard and the BTN wanted to see if they can force people in the DC and NYC metros to pay premium prices for B1G programming they don't care about in order to get any cable service.

Rutgers did nothing with its upgrade to the Big East. Its unlikely they'll do anything with their upgrade to the B1G.

UMCP? I'm just not seeing it contribute that much on an athletic basis either.

----

There's the P5 and then there's the B1G, the PAC and the SEC.

What did the conferences do relative to each other.

1) The B1G added laggard academic institutions (compared with the league without them) with mediocre to bad athletic teams in large markets that those schools largely don't carry. For Nebraska, its laggard academics and average athletics (recent history) combined with a small state market that they definitely carry.

2) The PAC added a comparable/better and a laggard academic institution with some mediocre athletics in state sized markets that those schools largely carry.

3) The SEC added marginally better academic institutions with average athletics in large state sized markets that those schools definitely carry.

---

On academics, the B1G didn't help themselves, but neither did the PAC. The SEC did, but only marginally.

On athletics, no one really helped themselves that much. If anyone was helped, it was probably the SEC

On market sizes, B1G wins, then the SEC coming in closely behind, with the PAC just working smaller numbers

On fan support x market size, the SEC wins handily, the PAC comes in second and the B1G is in the rear.

---

There's a reason that no one has to put up threads defending the SEC or PAC12's decisions in realignment...because no one really can fault their decision making.

The B1G left everyone scratching their heads and has to come up with second derivative secret plots to try to justify it.

The B1G is a great conference. But they blew it here IMHO.

"The top half of the SEC would fit really nicely into the B1G academically. "


There's that loaded, useless word again. "Academics". Its definition is completely made up, and varies depending on whomever you ask.

You can't prove anything, using that word.


Research is the only aspect of higher education that is easily quantified in a meaningful, objective way.

The B1G added UMCP, Rutgers, and Nebraska....I hear the Ivy League is crushed the B1G took them before they could extend membership plans. Are those schools, 'bad'...no, but they aren't top level. I'm sure you can find some cherry picked metric that shows that Nebraska is the best school in the world. But at the end of the day...UMCP, Rutgers, and Nebraska aren't top level schools. They didn't make the ACC, the Big East, or the Big XII academically superior.

Nebraska has middling to bad basketball and historically good, but recently mediocre football. Rutgers has abysmal men's basketball and bad football. UMCP has historically good basketball and mediocre to bad football.

---

If you really were going academic....why not Georgia Tech, Duke, or even BU?

(10-16-2015 08:36 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-16-2015 05:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  And I don't believe that B1G membership really means much, academically. There are two top tier schools in the B1G (Michigan and Northwestern). The rest of the schools are good, but not omg good. Half the SEC would fit in nicely academically in the B1G.

Yes, which, being true, will naturally be reflected when people who don't care half a grain of rice about college athletic conference rank the schools.

So when you look at the AWRU from Shanghai, its easy to see that the top seven schools slide right into the Big Ten (numbers are their world rankings):
#22, That School Up North
#24, Wisconsin
#27t, Northwestern
#29, Illinois
#30, Minnesota
#43, Maryland
#53, Vanderbilt
#60, Penn State
#61, Purdue
#64, Rutgers
#67, tOSU
#83, Florida
#99, MSU
#100, Texas A&M
#101-150: Indiana
#150-200: Georgia, Iowa, Tennessee,
#201-300: Alabama, Kentucky, LSU, Nebraska, South Carolina,
#301-400: Mizzou
#401-500: Auburn, Arkansas

Seems like we could be more precise than "the top half of the SEC would fit into the Big Ten", and say, "the best school in the SEC would fit comfortably with the top half of the Big Ten, and the rest of the top half would fit comfortable with the bottom half of the Big Ten."

You're confusing UAB with Alabama in Tuscaloosa. UAB is 201-300. Alabama in not ranked in ARWU.