Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Big home run
Author Message
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,514
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 157
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #71
RE: Big home run
Like HoD said, it's really too early to tell. I'd guess its going to take a generation for those ACC ties to wither into irrelevancy while simultaneously strengthening the affinity for the B1G. I do have two questions though:

1. Does UMD move if it wasn't in financial peril?
2. Was that peril purposely orchestrated?
01-16-2018 09:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,964
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #72
RE: Big home run
(01-16-2018 09:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  2. Was that peril purposely orchestrated?

I think the more appropriate question is, was the financial peril overstated to justify the move?

And, no. Because UMD shuttered programs. And Big Ten money is only going to resurrect one of those, with the others not even on a timeline.

It just costs too much to field large athletic departments in the northeastern corridor when you have football. UMD slashed programs. Rutgers runs on the cheap (and may continue to for a very long time). Temple finally cut into its programs.
Yesterday 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,514
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 157
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #73
RE: Big home run
(Yesterday 10:25 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(01-16-2018 09:40 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  2. Was that peril purposely orchestrated?

I think the more appropriate question is, was the financial peril overstated to justify the move?

And, no. Because UMD shuttered programs. And Big Ten money is only going to resurrect one of those, with the others not even on a timeline.

It just costs too much to field large athletic departments in the northeastern corridor when you have football. UMD slashed programs. Rutgers runs on the cheap (and may continue to for a very long time). Temple finally cut into its programs.

I agree that is probably the better ask. It seemed to me as though UMD's decision was made well ahead time.
Yesterday 11:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,964
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #74
RE: Big home run
(Yesterday 11:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  It seemed to me as though UMD's decision was made well ahead time.

It does, especially if one believes higher ed changes are glacial, and that these "surprises" aren't really surprises at all. I can't see a different president, kind of new on the job, just saying something kind of off the hip at an AAU meeting, and then all of the sudden, moving onto "serious negotiations" and the whole BoT hijacking.

However, going back to this 2012 article on UMD's move, the matter was extremely out of character. From leaving out faculty counsel to the closed vote, this wasn't an ordinary move. Maybe it was sudden?

The only people who are going tell the whole story really probably never will. Probably a red flag, but, that's a different story.
Yesterday 02:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,606
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 533
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #75
RE: Big home run
(Yesterday 02:41 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(Yesterday 11:14 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  It seemed to me as though UMD's decision was made well ahead time.

It does, especially if one believes higher ed changes are glacial, and that these "surprises" aren't really surprises at all. I can't see a different president, kind of new on the job, just saying something kind of off the hip at an AAU meeting, and then all of the sudden, moving onto "serious negotiations" and the whole BoT hijacking.

However, going back to this 2012 article on UMD's move, the matter was extremely out of character. From leaving out faculty counsel to the closed vote, this wasn't an ordinary move. Maybe it was sudden?

The only people who are going tell the whole story really probably never will. Probably a red flag, but, that's a different story.

Pretty simple explanation: How does a charter member of the ACC have a long, drawn-out, public process of debate and discussion about leaving the ACC and joining the B1G? It would be highly embarrassing for everyone.

These decisions will always be made behind closed doors, and quickly. And if they are proceeded by some kind of protracted negotiations, those will be behind the scenes, hush-hush.
(This post was last modified: Yesterday 04:42 PM by quo vadis.)
Yesterday 04:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,964
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #76
RE: Big home run
(Yesterday 04:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Pretty simple explanation: How does a charter member of the ACC have a long, drawn-out, public process of debate and discussion about leaving the ACC and joining the B1G? It would be highly embarrassing for everyone.

These decisions will always be made behind closed doors, and quickly. And if they are proceeded by some kind of protracted negotiations, those will be behind the scenes, hush-hush.

What's simple about it when a move isn't universally desired or seen as beneficial? The things Penn State (who had about a decade to work on the move), Nebraska (about a century), and Rutgers (since the 90's?) had going for them was faculty support behind the moves. It's not embarrassing for the university. It's embarrassing for the President, who did the negotiations, and the Board who endorsed it...in a closed session. I mean, the move was embarrassing enough that the school had to invest a few million in PR to defend it. And, rightfully, academic journals picked up on the marginalization of the faculty.

And the board gagging is just bad form in general. Whether or not UMS will later have your back, it's terrible precedent. And, that's probably why faculty were so upset...it's a terrible, untrustworthy culture it evokes. And maybe it is.
Today 06:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,606
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 533
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Post: #77
RE: Big home run
(Today 06:06 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(Yesterday 04:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Pretty simple explanation: How does a charter member of the ACC have a long, drawn-out, public process of debate and discussion about leaving the ACC and joining the B1G? It would be highly embarrassing for everyone.

These decisions will always be made behind closed doors, and quickly. And if they are proceeded by some kind of protracted negotiations, those will be behind the scenes, hush-hush.

What's simple about it when a move isn't universally desired or seen as beneficial? The things Penn State (who had about a decade to work on the move), Nebraska (about a century), and Rutgers (since the 90's?) had going for them was faculty support behind the moves. It's not embarrassing for the university. It's embarrassing for the President, who did the negotiations, and the Board who endorsed it...in a closed session. I mean, the move was embarrassing enough that the school had to invest a few million in PR to defend it. And, rightfully, academic journals picked up on the marginalization of the faculty.

And the board gagging is just bad form in general. Whether or not UMS will later have your back, it's terrible precedent. And, that's probably why faculty were so upset...it's a terrible, untrustworthy culture it evokes. And maybe it is.

Seriously? What if for a year or so, FSU was publicly negotiating with the SEC for membership. You don't think that wouldn't be embarrassing in terms of how it interacts with its current partners in the ACC, and wouldn't cause acrimony? And then what if the negotiations fall through and they remain in the ACC. Hard feelings, anyone? Absolutely.

As for the internal angle, I'm faculty, and strongly defensive of faculty prerogatives and input when it comes to administrative decisions. In the past, I've served on our Faculty Senate and long ago learned to keep a sharp eye out for administrative maneuvers.

But conference affiliation is essentially an athletic issue. If my administration decided to move us from conference A to conference B, I might have strong feelings about that as a fan of our athletic teams, but it wouldn't bother me at all that the Faculty Senate wasn't consulted with, as it is not an academic issue. Any faculty at MD who are angry about a lack of input got angry over very little IMO, and aren't picking their battles correctly.
(This post was last modified: Today 11:05 AM by quo vadis.)
Today 10:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SC-KNIGHT Online
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 72
Joined: Nov 2017
Reputation: 3
I Root For: USC-RUTGERS
Location:
Post: #78
RE: Big home run
(01-07-2018 09:48 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  The Big Ten needs Nebraska to return to national prominence. It needs that western division to become a triad of strong Husker, Hawkeye, and Badger programs to counterbalance the 4 strong eastern schools. Adding Oklahoma would also lend credibility to the west as well.

Nebraska needs to schedule its 3 OOC games in Oklahoma and Texas every year to so it can recruit in the SW again where it once recruited. It has lost that SW pipeline since moving to the B-10 and is competing in the rust belt with the rest of the old B-10 schools for players. It needs old rivalries with Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and OK St on its schedule rotating them through every year with H&H's, and games with AAC and CUSA Texas and Oklahoma schools filling in when they can't get the P5 schools on board to re-establish that pipe line for SW recruits the other B-10 schools can't bring on board. 04-cheers
Today 11:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
The Cutter of Bish Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,964
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 78
I Root For: the little guy
Location:
Post: #79
RE: Big home run
(Today 10:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(Today 06:06 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  
(Yesterday 04:41 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Pretty simple explanation: How does a charter member of the ACC have a long, drawn-out, public process of debate and discussion about leaving the ACC and joining the B1G? It would be highly embarrassing for everyone.

These decisions will always be made behind closed doors, and quickly. And if they are proceeded by some kind of protracted negotiations, those will be behind the scenes, hush-hush.

What's simple about it when a move isn't universally desired or seen as beneficial? The things Penn State (who had about a decade to work on the move), Nebraska (about a century), and Rutgers (since the 90's?) had going for them was faculty support behind the moves. It's not embarrassing for the university. It's embarrassing for the President, who did the negotiations, and the Board who endorsed it...in a closed session. I mean, the move was embarrassing enough that the school had to invest a few million in PR to defend it. And, rightfully, academic journals picked up on the marginalization of the faculty.

And the board gagging is just bad form in general. Whether or not UMS will later have your back, it's terrible precedent. And, that's probably why faculty were so upset...it's a terrible, untrustworthy culture it evokes. And maybe it is.

Seriously? What if for a year or so, FSU was publicly negotiating with the SEC for membership. You don't think that wouldn't be embarrassing in terms of how it interacts with its current partners in the ACC, and wouldn't cause acrimony? And then what if the negotiations fall through and they remain in the ACC. Hard feelings, anyone? Absolutely.

As for the internal angle, I'm faculty, and strongly defensive of faculty prerogatives and input when it comes to administrative decisions. In the past, I've served on our Faculty Senate and long ago learned to keep a sharp eye out for administrative maneuvers.

But conference affiliation is essentially an athletic issue. If my administration decided to move us from conference A to conference B, I might have strong feelings about that as a fan of our athletic teams, but it wouldn't bother me at all that the Faculty Senate wasn't consulted with, as it is not an academic issue. Any faculty at MD who are angry about a lack of input got angry over very little IMO, and aren't picking their battles correctly.

I don't disagree with that last paragraph, except when your leadership is praising the academic prestige of conference affiliation in an official release, and saying there would be transformational cultural benefits from the new affiliation; now you're talking for me. I would find that pretty reprehensible if that became part of the official college message when the decision was kept completely away from faculty. If you keep it about sports, about what athletic possibilities you get when you pair UMD football with Michigan and Ohio State, or hoops with Indiana and Michigan State, and just that...but that's not what UMD did. Stay in your lane, and you're good, I would think. UMD didn't, and the faculty were quick to speak out accordingly.

I can't speak for how school representatives conduct themselves with conference colleagues. We get snippets and quotes here and there from angered coaches, wishful AD's, and other folks...it's not them who get the votes. I think the balance issue is tough, but the schools who communicate their frustrations (and that included Florida State), you can still be civil about this stuff. You had Missouri who seemingly didn't handle their business well, but Colorado did.

It's unfortunate the previous administration at Maryland didn't address this matter with the weight it required, but Loh and the board cut corners to get to their "desired" result. I think it's more the Board than Loh, though, who mucked it up. They are supposed to keep Loh in check. This didn't need to get to a gag order, and the Board should have sent a strong message condemning that gesture. Sports shouldn't be this destabilizing to policy and procedure.
Today 12:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.