CSNbbs

Full Version: Was Penn State considering moving to the ACC?
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Interesting comments from Gene Smith as well as commentary on the whole concept:

Was the B1G right to fear Penn State leaving?


Quote:Yet I still don’t buy it. Not to accuse Smith of anything, but this seems more like running interference for your business partner’s bad deal (Rutgers and Maryland) than anything else. The additions were about TV markets and strengthening the value of the Big Ten Network. Even before they were added, the Big Ten could boast a TV payout lapping that of other leagues. I find it hard to believe Penn State would’ve given that up for what was at the time a pretty weak ACC football product and no conference network revenue to bank on to help make up the difference in base TV contract.
I agree with the block quote above.

Penn State would not have moved to the ACC. Big Ten money trumps the geographic appeal of playing with a few schools from the northeast and having a better recruiting presence in Florida and Georgia. If the TV money were even it might be a different story.

Also, even before Maryland and Rutgers were added, the Big Ten had a GOR that IIRC had about 15 more years to run at that point. (That GOR has since been extended.)
The only place that Penn State was joining the ACC was in the minds of the cultists on the ACC board.
And that expansion was all about the BTN. Even famous Rutgers alumnus Mr. Magoo could have seen that.
(03-19-2019 12:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting comments from Gene Smith as well as commentary on the whole concept:

Was the B1G right to fear Penn State leaving?


Quote:Yet I still don’t buy it. Not to accuse Smith of anything, but this seems more like running interference for your business partner’s bad deal (Rutgers and Maryland) than anything else. The additions were about TV markets and strengthening the value of the Big Ten Network. Even before they were added, the Big Ten could boast a TV payout lapping that of other leagues. I find it hard to believe Penn State would’ve given that up for what was at the time a pretty weak ACC football product and no conference network revenue to bank on to help make up the difference in base TV contract.

This is all in response to a statement made by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney during an interview with a Toledo newspaper:

Quote:“Here’s one thing that people seem to forget about our move with Rutgers and Maryland. At the time, the ACC was looking to expand. Part of our move was to protect Penn State. Everyone forgets we had a teammate and partner institution that was on a [geographic] island, so what we did, beyond gaining exposure, is we further brought in a valued partner in Penn State. Had Penn State defected to the ACC, what would the conversation have been then?”

Now, was Delaney telling the truth or not - you decide - but that's what he said.

source: https://www.toledoblade.com/sports/colle...0190305116
(03-19-2019 04:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2019 12:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting comments from Gene Smith as well as commentary on the whole concept:

Was the B1G right to fear Penn State leaving?


Quote:Yet I still don’t buy it. Not to accuse Smith of anything, but this seems more like running interference for your business partner’s bad deal (Rutgers and Maryland) than anything else. The additions were about TV markets and strengthening the value of the Big Ten Network. Even before they were added, the Big Ten could boast a TV payout lapping that of other leagues. I find it hard to believe Penn State would’ve given that up for what was at the time a pretty weak ACC football product and no conference network revenue to bank on to help make up the difference in base TV contract.

This is all in response to a statement made by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney during an interview with a Toledo newspaper:

Quote:“Here’s one thing that people seem to forget about our move with Rutgers and Maryland. At the time, the ACC was looking to expand. Part of our move was to protect Penn State. Everyone forgets we had a teammate and partner institution that was on a [geographic] island, so what we did, beyond gaining exposure, is we further brought in a valued partner in Penn State. Had Penn State defected to the ACC, what would the conversation have been then?”

Now, was Delaney telling the truth or not - you decide - but that's what he said.

source: https://www.toledoblade.com/sports/colle...0190305116

Those comments were actually from Gene Smith, but I think that puts things in a different context. At that point, it makes sense that a friend of Delaney would revise history a bit to make the guy look better. If Delaney himself had said it then I think it would bare more credence.

Nonetheless, I do agree with the Syracuse blog when it says that Maryland and Rutgers shouldn't have been enough to keep Penn State in the B1G if they really wanted all those games with Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic opponents. Not to mention the recruiting picture...
(03-19-2019 04:55 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2019 04:30 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-19-2019 12:44 PM)AllTideUp Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting comments from Gene Smith as well as commentary on the whole concept:

Was the B1G right to fear Penn State leaving?


Quote:Yet I still don’t buy it. Not to accuse Smith of anything, but this seems more like running interference for your business partner’s bad deal (Rutgers and Maryland) than anything else. The additions were about TV markets and strengthening the value of the Big Ten Network. Even before they were added, the Big Ten could boast a TV payout lapping that of other leagues. I find it hard to believe Penn State would’ve given that up for what was at the time a pretty weak ACC football product and no conference network revenue to bank on to help make up the difference in base TV contract.

This is all in response to a statement made by Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney during an interview with a Toledo newspaper:

Quote:“Here’s one thing that people seem to forget about our move with Rutgers and Maryland. At the time, the ACC was looking to expand. Part of our move was to protect Penn State. Everyone forgets we had a teammate and partner institution that was on a [geographic] island, so what we did, beyond gaining exposure, is we further brought in a valued partner in Penn State. Had Penn State defected to the ACC, what would the conversation have been then?”

Now, was Delaney telling the truth or not - you decide - but that's what he said.

source: https://www.toledoblade.com/sports/colle...0190305116

Those comments were actually from Gene Smith, but I think that puts things in a different context. At that point, it makes sense that a friend of Delaney would revise history a bit to make the guy look better. If Delaney himself had said it then I think it would bare more credence.

Nonetheless, I do agree with the Syracuse blog when it says that Maryland and Rutgers shouldn't have been enough to keep Penn State in the B1G if they really wanted all those games with Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic opponents. Not to mention the recruiting picture...

Ah, thanks for correcting me on that.

As for the reason Penn State went to - and stayed with - the Big Ten:

[Image: moneytalks.gif]
Penn State would be a big whale in a very small pond (ACC). It doesn’t fit in any way from a football and basketball perspective plus they put a big emphasis in men’s hockey.

I just don’t see the fanbase being happy giving up annual games vs Michigan, Ohio State and Michigan State in exchange for Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College. The Big Ten is where PSU belongs.
About 15 years ago I knew of a guy who was a Penn State fan that right after the VT-BC-Miami expansion thought Penn State would be a better fit in the ACC an eastern football conference.

Though he was in the minority. Another PSU guy thought playing the smaller schools of the ACC was bellow them.

My guess would be that now Rutgers and Maryland are in the B1G the first guy would be far less interested in a move to the ACC than 15 years ago.
The time for the ACC to court Joe Paterno should have been after Penn State was rejected for admission by the Big East. But Joe Paterno most likely perceived the ACC as being a basketball first conference in competition with the Big East. And I'm sure the ACC was less than impressed with Penn State's emphasis on football and wrestling at the expense of the other Olympic sports.
If Penn State seriously considered leaving it would have been in the wake of the B1G docking them over $13 million in revenue over four years and imposing other sanctions.

Penn State would not have left on a straight dollars and cents analysis but they might very well have felt the B1G treated them unfairly in the aftermath of Sandusky, punishing Penn State for the actions and inaction of people since terminated and making it harder for Penn State to fix the issues by restricting revenue.
(03-20-2019 07:23 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote: [ -> ]About 15 years ago I knew of a guy who was a Penn State fan that right after the VT-BC-Miami expansion thought Penn State would be a better fit in the ACC an eastern football conference.

Though he was in the minority. Another PSU guy thought playing the smaller schools of the ACC was bellow them.

My guess would be that now Rutgers and Maryland are in the B1G the first guy would be far less interested in a move to the ACC than 15 years ago.

So what did that guy think about playing Rutgers, MD, Indiana, Northwestern, and Minnesota?

The acrimony behind MD's exit was the reveal that WF was indeed having conversations with Penn State as well NW and Purdue.

Penn State's interest in the ACC was the State of Florida, and football conference games with Miami, FSU, ND, BC, Syracuse, Pitt, MD, and NC State, and basketball conference games with UNC, Duke, Syracuse, MD, and ND.

The amount of difference in money in a television contract between a Big 10 without PSU and MD, versus an ACC with PSU, MD, Pitt, Syracuse, and ND would likely have been fairly minimal.

Culturally the ACC is a better fit for PSU, but since the formation of the Southern Conference in 1921 by Maryland, the relationship between PSU and the SoCon and then the ACC was controlled by MD and what MD saw as its own self interests.
(03-20-2019 08:31 AM)arkstfan Wrote: [ -> ]If Penn State seriously considered leaving it would have been in the wake of the B1G docking them over $13 million in revenue over four years and imposing other sanctions.

Penn State would not have left on a straight dollars and cents analysis but they might very well have felt the B1G treated them unfairly in the aftermath of Sandusky, punishing Penn State for the actions and inaction of people since terminated and making it harder for Penn State to fix the issues by restricting revenue.

They were already locked into the Big Ten GOR at that point, though. IIRC Delany said the GOR was entered into when they started Big Ten Network.
It would have been bad practice to not at least have a plan had PSU’s sanctions resulted in expulsion from the conference.

And you could see how “content” folks were/are with the Big Ten when the conference took its pound of flesh from them. Yes, the president, board, and faculty will insist and insert their preference for as long as they will. It’s what the big time donors will want over the long haul, though. And there are plenty who are just tired of the school taking orders from an office that might as well be in Ann Arbor or Columbus.

The Maryland-ACC suit shed some light on some chatter between schools. IIRC, discussion about PSU was quite the topic?
(03-21-2019 09:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]It would have been bad practice to not at least have a plan had PSU’s sanctions resulted in expulsion from the conference.

And you could see how “content” folks were/are with the Big Ten when the conference took its pound of flesh from them. Yes, the president, board, and faculty will insist and insert their preference for as long as they will. It’s what the big time donors will want over the long haul, though. And there are plenty who are just tired of the school taking orders from an office that might as well be in Ann Arbor or Columbus.

The Maryland-ACC suit shed some light on some chatter between schools. IIRC, discussion about PSU was quite the topic?

Because Wake Forest is private and has it's own attorneys they are the league school that does the most talking with other schools as ideas are tossed in the air. The Big 10 has a number of schools that can't compete in the Big 10 in football. The cost of competing in football in the Big 10 is about 50 M more a year than in the ACC.

There are 4 schools in the B10 that have some issues vis a vie the Columbus/Ann Arbor axis. Those four are Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State, and Penn State. This is NOT TO SAY they are UNHAPPY or are planning to leave, but they have a reason to keep their options open. With Purdue and MSU it's little brother syndrome. Each would be a bigger deal in the ACC versus the B10, same as NC State and VT would be in the SEC or B10.

With PSU they didn't like being treated like country bumpkins and their culture does not match the Wisky, Michigan, or Ohio State.

With Northwestern, they are the single small private school when the majority of small private schools are in the ACC.

With ND in the ACC, these four have an additional reason to listen. As Bish notes, it would be malpractice for these four not to keep an ear out. What Loh and Kirwan did was to confirm others in the B10 that conversations were had.
As a hypothetical alternative history I wonder what the ACC and Big Ten look like if Penn St were to either be kicked out or voluntarily left for the ACC:

Penn St gets the spot in the ACC that Pitt got. Syracuse is chosen as #14.

Without the lure of Penn St, Maryland never leaves the ACC.

Pitt and Rutgers are the only Northeastern AAU replacement options for the Big Ten. Rutgers gets picked for it's market.

Pitt and Louisville POSSIBLY keep the Big East factions together, eliminating the need for Tulsa and Tulane and the formation of the New Big East.

The other option is the Big Ten turns its attention from the Northeastern markets and fills Penn St's spot, and possibly a 13th and 14th, with AAU former Big 8 schools.
(03-21-2019 08:12 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]As a hypothetical alternative history I wonder what the ACC and Big Ten look like if Penn St were to either be kicked out or voluntarily left for the ACC:

Penn St gets the spot in the ACC that Pitt got. Syracuse is chosen as #14.

Without the lure of Penn St, Maryland never leaves the ACC.

Pitt and Rutgers are the only Northeastern AAU replacement options for the Big Ten. Rutgers gets picked for it's market.

Pitt and Louisville POSSIBLY keep the Big East factions together, eliminating the need for Tulsa and Tulane and the formation of the New Big East.

The other option is the Big Ten turns its attention from the Northeastern markets and fills Penn St's spot, and possibly a 13th and 14th, with AAU former Big 8 schools.

If Maryland isn't game, then I think the Big Ten takes Rutgers (ostensibly for the NYC market), Syracuse (which may actually have more of the NYC market than Rutgers), and Pitt (to get back into PA). This of course means that the only Northeast teams Penn State would get to play in the ACC are BC and potentially whomever is added as #14. (UConn? Temple? Maybe Northeast-adjacent WVU, if PSU insisted on it? That means Louisville to the Big 12, incidentally.) Also UMD, if you count MD as Northeast.

ACC
Atlantic: Boston College, Miami-FL, Maryland, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech, West Virginia
Coastal: Clemson, Duke, Florida State, Georgia Tech, NC State, North Carolina, Wake Forest
Protected crossovers: Miami-FL/Florida State, Virginia/North Carolina

Big Ten
East: Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Syracuse
West: Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Northwestern, Purdue, Wisconsin
Protected crossover: Indiana/Purdue
Penn State is not a cultural fit in the ACC. I repeat, Penn State is not a cultural fit in the ACC. Probably in 1993 that was true but if Penn State’s administration tries today to take PSU from the Big Ten to the ACC, there would be riots in State College. Giving up games against Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State for a slate of Pitt, Syracuse, Boston College, etc would not play well with the fan base.
(03-21-2019 09:12 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote: [ -> ]It would have been bad practice to not at least have a plan had PSU’s sanctions resulted in expulsion from the conference.

And you could see how “content” folks were/are with the Big Ten when the conference took its pound of flesh from them. Yes, the president, board, and faculty will insist and insert their preference for as long as they will. It’s what the big time donors will want over the long haul, though. And there are plenty who are just tired of the school taking orders from an office that might as well be in Ann Arbor or Columbus.

The Maryland-ACC suit shed some light on some chatter between schools. IIRC, discussion about PSU was quite the topic?

I'm sure that there was some worst-case scenario discussion, but the idea that Penn State would walk away from the prestige and money of the Big 10 to join some backwater, sucking hind tit joke of a conference like the ACC without it being an absolute worst case scenario is absolutely foolish.
Everyone puts the Big Ten on this kind of pedestal like there’s an endless list of schools dying to join. But the Notre Dame’s, Texas’, Colorado’s, and UNC’s are not among them.

For what money and prestige there is, it hasn’t snagged the biggest fish.

But, for Penn State? Sure, there is enough in that school who feel the membership defines them. The question will be, over time, does it hold up? They don’t culturally fit any major conference. They’ve had to adapt to play the part in the Big Ten. Heck, if they fit anything, it was the old Big 8, with big country ag sci schools who worshipped football. Let’s not pretend all are on board with the Big Ten there, though. Their board, an extension of their alumni, even if propped up by wingnuts, have some folks who aren’t in love with the conference.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's