Heinous:

UNC was under no pressure to move. Just because a few fans sent panicky emails to Bubba doesn't mean squat. It's been researched, it makes no sense or cents for UNC to move. If it makes no sense for Carolina, it makes no sense for UVa. UVa needs nothing from the B10 - the B10 is "blue collar" to UVa and your brats would clash with their wine, cheese, and caviar.

Second, the bomb has already gone off in the Midwest. http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystal...the-house/

Since 1990 the states of Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Pa, have lost 13 Congressional seats in the house while the states of Va, NC, Ga, Florida, and Texas have gained 14 seats. Each seat represents about 700K people. That's 9.8 million people moving to those states, primarily from B10 country. You have lost 9.1 million compared to the other states a change in status of 19 million.

At the citation above I noted where well respected political guru Larry Sabato has passed along recent work that projects B10 states to lose another 4 seats in 2020, and the five Southern States I noted to gain 5. A seat will probably represent about 800K then and the movement since 1990 will be the five Southern States adding 19 seats, and the 9 B10 states losing 17 seats since 1990. That's a total demographic shift of 29 million people over 30 years.

In particular Pa will have lost 4 seats, Ohio 4 seats, Michigan and Illinois 3 seats over 30 years, while Texas will have gained 8, NC 2, Va 1, Florida 4 and Ga 3.

Now assuming that Sabatto is correct and the projected shift six years from now is just a net 9 seats, and the shift for the 1990 - 2020 period is 36, the average shift will have been a net 12 seats each decade, so perhaps the net change of 9 represents a slowing of the shift but it's not a great slowing because the pace will have been 14, 13, and 9. Two more decades, even at a declining rate of net loses would see the old B10 area losing about 9 or 10 more seats. Now a 46 seat swing over 50 years will represent the net movement of almost 50,000,000 from old B10 country to the ACC/SEC states of VA, NC, Florida, and Texas.

What you are looking at is Georgia and NC having as much population as Ohio and Michigan and Florida having 50% more folks than Illinois.

I don't think the trends are "alarmist or propaganda".

Where you will see the effect is in the number of football players in those states and the socio-economic mix necessary to support the stadium sizes.

The Northeast has already undergone the transition away from producing a large number of B-5 type football players. Those kids are playing soccer, lacrosse, or basketball and specializing in one sport and the concussion issue will not make it any better.

But maybe the projects will turn around due to some societal change that reverses the Fordist industrial decline.

They didn't lose 9.1 million people. They just grew at a rate slower than those states. Your numbers are correct but your method of presenting it is false. Eventually when the pressure mounts, those states with the slower growth will offer enough incentives to bring business back and when large business returns, so will the population.

Yes, it IS being alarmist to try and present the situation as you are.

A few seats in Congress really doesn't matter anyways as Congress does nothing as it is. You want to argue that the population is moving to Republican States? If that is Northern population moving in the numbers you are trying to suggest then is that not just as likely to be reducing the control Republicans will have in some of those States? Neither party wants to have full control ever again. They don't want the full mantle of responsibility on their heads. The districts will continuously be redrawn in order to make sure that happens.

(06-28-2014 10:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They didn't lose 9.1 million people. They just grew at a rate slower than those states. Your numbers are correct but your method of presenting it is false. Eventually when the pressure mounts, those states with the slower growth will offer enough incentives to bring business back and when large business returns, so will the population.

Yes, it IS being alarmist to try and present the situation as you are.

A few seats in Congress really doesn't matter anyways as Congress does nothing as it is. You want to argue that the population is moving to Republican States? If that is Northern population moving in the numbers you are trying to suggest then is that not just as likely to be reducing the control Republicans will have in some of those States? Neither party wants to have full control ever again. They don't want the full mantle of responsibility on their heads. The districts will continuously be redrawn in order to make sure that happens.

"You have lost 9.1 million compared to the other states"

It's a zero sum game in Congress, which vividly shows how your region is doing regarding population.

Here's another way to put things:

Since the 1970 Census the following states have grown as follows:

Iowa - 7% or 200K
Ohio - 9% or 900K
Illinois - 15% or 1.7 million
Michigan - 11% or 1 million
PA - 9% or 1 million
Neb - 28% or 400K
Wisky - 30% or 1.3 million
Indiana - 27% or 1.4 million

Va - 88% or 3.8 million
SC - 78% or 2.2 million
NC - 96% or 4.8 million
GA - 116% or 5.5 million
TX - 134% or 15 million
FL - 191% of 12 million

Maybe time bomb is the wrong phrase, perhaps "stunted" is the right phrase.

(06-28-2014 09:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:28 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:01 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 08:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That's all good and stuff but expansion isn't as much about what you have done as it is about what you can do. Maryland will be fine once they get their Athletic Department turned around. They have a strong upside and I don't think you are giving their football program enough respect. It certainly isn't a top level program but they have been very respectable as of late. They bring football, basketball, lacrosse and have already done their part in helping the BTN.

Rutgers is showing they are taking Athletics seriously now. History matters but not if a school like Rutgers is looking to change their path away from their historical standing. They have the resources, they have the location. Rutgers is a diamond in the rough for the Big Ten. That is why I list them as a school I am following and that is the only reason. I cant wait to see what they do.

I will agree with you that Maryland has potential but Rutgers has a long way to go to even be ok in athletics

They did pretty well the past couple seasons. They seemed to have the building blocks in place for their basketball program but what seemed to be a good hire turned out not to be. That is simply a set back.

there football team was much better under previous coach sciano (even though marrone owned him with 3-1 with less talent )

But their recruiting will be much stronger now at home.

Rutgers recruiting is not doing well right now. PSU is grabbing NJ kids at will. Cuse is making inroads once again in NJ. Rutgers is hurting under Coach Flood's buffoonery.

(06-28-2014 10:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 10:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They didn't lose 9.1 million people. They just grew at a rate slower than those states. Your numbers are correct but your method of presenting it is false. Eventually when the pressure mounts, those states with the slower growth will offer enough incentives to bring business back and when large business returns, so will the population.

Yes, it IS being alarmist to try and present the situation as you are.

A few seats in Congress really doesn't matter anyways as Congress does nothing as it is. You want to argue that the population is moving to Republican States? If that is Northern population moving in the numbers you are trying to suggest then is that not just as likely to be reducing the control Republicans will have in some of those States? Neither party wants to have full control ever again. They don't want the full mantle of responsibility on their heads. The districts will continuously be redrawn in order to make sure that happens.

"You have lost 9.1 million compared to the other states"

It's a zero sum game in Congress, which vividly shows how your region is doing regarding population.

My region? I live in Arizona. You are wrong if you think this is some kind of competition between you and me. Quite frankly, I don't give a ****.

You are trying to redirect and redefine. The fact is you tried to say that region LOST 9.1 million and that it is a ticking time bomb. The region hasn't lost 9.1 million and its not a ticking time bomb and Congress is more ineffectual than ever so the loss of representatives isn't as big of a deal as biased folks such as yourself try to make it out to be.

(06-28-2014 10:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:28 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:01 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  I will agree with you that Maryland has potential but Rutgers has a long way to go to even be ok in athletics

They did pretty well the past couple seasons. They seemed to have the building blocks in place for their basketball program but what seemed to be a good hire turned out not to be. That is simply a set back.

there football team was much better under previous coach sciano (even though marrone owned him with 3-1 with less talent )

But their recruiting will be much stronger now at home.

Rutgers recruiting is not doing well right now. PSU is grabbing NJ kids at will. Cuse is making inroads once again in NJ. Rutgers is hurting under Coach Flood's buffoonery.

Hilarious. They havnt even played a single game in the Big Ten. You think far too short term to be in a conversation with me if you are being completely serious with that post.

(06-28-2014 10:45 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  Here's another way to put things:

Since the 1970 Census the following states have grown as follows:

Iowa - 7% or 200K
Ohio - 9% or 900K
Illinois - 15% or 1.7 million
Michigan - 11% or 1 million
PA - 9% or 1 million
Neb - 28% or 400K
Wisky - 30% or 1.3 million
Indiana - 27% or 1.4 million

Va - 88% or 3.8 million
SC - 78% or 2.2 million
NC - 96% or 4.8 million
GA - 116% or 5.5 million
TX - 134% or 15 million
FL - 191% of 12 million

Maybe time bomb is the wrong phrase, perhaps "stunted" is the right phrase.

Extreme growth isn't always a good thing. There are more factors involved than just population. We will see what happens to those States when their population make up changes drastically.

(06-28-2014 10:30 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 10:22 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They didn't lose 9.1 million people. They just grew at a rate slower than those states. Your numbers are correct but your method of presenting it is false. Eventually when the pressure mounts, those states with the slower growth will offer enough incentives to bring business back and when large business returns, so will the population.

Yes, it IS being alarmist to try and present the situation as you are.

A few seats in Congress really doesn't matter anyways as Congress does nothing as it is. You want to argue that the population is moving to Republican States? If that is Northern population moving in the numbers you are trying to suggest then is that not just as likely to be reducing the control Republicans will have in some of those States? Neither party wants to have full control ever again. They don't want the full mantle of responsibility on their heads. The districts will continuously be redrawn in order to make sure that happens.

"You have lost 9.1 million compared to the other states"

It's a zero sum game in Congress, which vividly shows how your region is doing regarding population.

besides Jack Kemp, I can't seem to recall what positions those congressmen play.

(06-28-2014 02:51 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC picked up Missouri & Texas
ACC moved into NE corridor
B-10 grapped Nebraska & MD
can u imagine how much money B-10 could have made last 3 yrs,
if Deleney knew what he was doing.
now he has no shot at Va & NC, which was he goal to begin with.

For 61 years The ACC had Maryland, and during their expansion campaigns, they had unimpeded opportunities to acquire Rutgers. It gives me no satisfaction to diss the ACC, but "can u imagine how much money" the ACC could have made if they understood how to monetize their markets with cable TV? You're right that Delany wants UVA and UNC. It's because all of that population growth you point to is driven in large part by B1G alumni. There's a ready-made BTN audience waiting.

(06-29-2014 03:22 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 02:51 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC picked up Missouri & Texas
ACC moved into NE corridor
B-10 grapped Nebraska & MD
can u imagine how much money B-10 could have made last 3 yrs,
if Deleney knew what he was doing.
now he has no shot at Va & NC, which was he goal to begin with.

For 61 years The ACC had Maryland, and during their expansion campaigns, they had unimpeded opportunities to acquire Rutgers. It gives me no satisfaction to diss the ACC, but "can u imagine how much money" the ACC could have made if they understood how to monetize their markets with cable TV? You're right that Delany wants UVA and UNC. It's because all of that population growth you point to is driven in large part by B1G alumni. There's a ready-made BTN audience waiting.

One B1G problem with this thinking. The ACC could never get Rutgers, and they knew it (and it wasn't because we thought we were superior to them - lets get that out of the way right up front). That's why the invite never came. RU's intent always was the B1G, like minded schools, land grant, state U's etc. Even if the ACC invited some time in the past and RU accepted, the ACC always new they would leave if the B1G ever invited them - and that was a matter of time. So to not make themselves look rejected, the invite never came.

Perfect fit for RU was never the ACC (or the Big East). The ultimate goal always was the B1G and the ACC (and Big East) knew that.

(06-28-2014 09:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:28 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:01 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 08:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That's all good and stuff but expansion isn't as much about what you have done as it is about what you can do. Maryland will be fine once they get their Athletic Department turned around. They have a strong upside and I don't think you are giving their football program enough respect. It certainly isn't a top level program but they have been very respectable as of late. They bring football, basketball, lacrosse and have already done their part in helping the BTN.

Rutgers is showing they are taking Athletics seriously now. History matters but not if a school like Rutgers is looking to change their path away from their historical standing. They have the resources, they have the location. Rutgers is a diamond in the rough for the Big Ten. That is why I list them as a school I am following and that is the only reason. I cant wait to see what they do.

I will agree with you that Maryland has potential but Rutgers has a long way to go to even be ok in athletics

They did pretty well the past couple seasons. They seemed to have the building blocks in place for their basketball program but what seemed to be a good hire turned out not to be. That is simply a set back.

there football team was much better under previous coach sciano (even though marrone owned him with 3-1 with less talent )

But their recruiting will be much stronger now at home.

You may be right over time, but no Big Ten bump in recruiting yet. See the list of current commitments. It is pretty bad.

https://rutgers.rivals.com/default.asp?SR=RivalsFP

Last year's recruiting class (after the Big Ten announcement) was a disaster. I think that Rutgers had as many as ten guys decommit.

Hopefully, things turn around for Rutgers but they probably need to get rid of Flood and hire a new coach.

A two year recruiting hole like Rutgers has will mean a lot of losses in the Big Ten early on. Yes, I said early on, as I have neither the mental capacity nor the messianic vision to converse with the all knowing about long term future events yet to unfold.

(06-28-2014 10:56 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:28 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:01 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  I will agree with you that Maryland has potential but Rutgers has a long way to go to even be ok in athletics

They did pretty well the past couple seasons. They seemed to have the building blocks in place for their basketball program but what seemed to be a good hire turned out not to be. That is simply a set back.

there football team was much better under previous coach sciano (even though marrone owned him with 3-1 with less talent )

But their recruiting will be much stronger now at home.

Rutgers recruiting is not doing well right now. PSU is grabbing NJ kids at will. Cuse is making inroads once again in NJ. Rutgers is hurting under Coach Flood's buffoonery.

Big time. All any serious Rutgers fans can talk about is who do we hire after he takes us 3-9 this year. BC is also back to taking NJ kids in a big way too.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

(06-29-2014 07:38 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:28 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:01 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  I will agree with you that Maryland has potential but Rutgers has a long way to go to even be ok in athletics

They did pretty well the past couple seasons. They seemed to have the building blocks in place for their basketball program but what seemed to be a good hire turned out not to be. That is simply a set back.

there football team was much better under previous coach sciano (even though marrone owned him with 3-1 with less talent )

But their recruiting will be much stronger now at home.

You may be right over time, but no Big Ten bump in recruiting yet. See the list of current commitments. It is pretty bad.

https://rutgers.rivals.com/default.asp?SR=RivalsFP

Last year's recruiting class (after the Big Ten announcement) was a disaster. I think that Rutgers had as many as ten guys decommit.

Hopefully, things turn around for Rutgers but they probably need to get rid of Flood and hire a new coach.

A two year recruiting hole like Rutgers has will mean a lot of losses in the Big Ten early on. Yes, I said early on, as I have neither the mental capacity nor the messianic vision to converse with the all knowing about long term future events yet to unfold.

Recruiting has fallen off a cliff. Julie better be ready to make a move on football by mid season to fire Flood and start looking for the new regime.

Sent from my KFTHWI using Tapatalk

(06-28-2014 09:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:28 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:01 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 08:40 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  That's all good and stuff but expansion isn't as much about what you have done as it is about what you can do. Maryland will be fine once they get their Athletic Department turned around. They have a strong upside and I don't think you are giving their football program enough respect. It certainly isn't a top level program but they have been very respectable as of late. They bring football, basketball, lacrosse and have already done their part in helping the BTN.

Rutgers is showing they are taking Athletics seriously now. History matters but not if a school like Rutgers is looking to change their path away from their historical standing. They have the resources, they have the location. Rutgers is a diamond in the rough for the Big Ten. That is why I list them as a school I am following and that is the only reason. I cant wait to see what they do.

I will agree with you that Maryland has potential but Rutgers has a long way to go to even be ok in athletics

They did pretty well the past couple seasons. They seemed to have the building blocks in place for their basketball program but what seemed to be a good hire turned out not to be. That is simply a set back.

there football team was much better under previous coach schiano (even though marrone owned him with 3-1 with less talent )

But their recruiting will be much stronger now at home.

not until they stop with the you commit to Rutgers you can't visit anywhere else or were pulling the offer crap that thye have been doing under there current staff. The Big 10 took Rutgers for 3 reasons:1- eyeballs and cable boxes in NYC area. 2- so they could recruit new jersey harder. 3- Throw a bone to Penn State who was on an island in the Northeast.

(06-29-2014 08:27 AM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:28 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 06:01 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  I will agree with you that Maryland has potential but Rutgers has a long way to go to even be ok in athletics

They did pretty well the past couple seasons. They seemed to have the building blocks in place for their basketball program but what seemed to be a good hire turned out not to be. That is simply a set back.

there football team was much better under previous coach schiano (even though marrone owned him with 3-1 with less talent )

But their recruiting will be much stronger now at home.

not until they stop with the you commit to Rutgers you can't visit anywhere else or were pulling the offer crap that thye have been doing under there current staff. The Big 10 took Rutgers for 3 reasons:1- eyeballs and cable boxes in NYC area. 2- so they could recruit new jersey harder. 3- Throw a bone to Penn State who was on an island in the Northeast.

I think you Syracuse guys should worry about your own recruiting problems. Last I heard, your best two recruits are academically ineligible......

(06-29-2014 08:45 AM)penguino Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 08:27 AM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 09:28 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 08:55 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They did pretty well the past couple seasons. They seemed to have the building blocks in place for their basketball program but what seemed to be a good hire turned out not to be. That is simply a set back.

there football team was much better under previous coach schiano (even though marrone owned him with 3-1 with less talent )

But their recruiting will be much stronger now at home.

not until they stop with the you commit to Rutgers you can't visit anywhere else or were pulling the offer crap that thye have been doing under there current staff. The Big 10 took Rutgers for 3 reasons:1- eyeballs and cable boxes in NYC area. 2- so they could recruit new jersey harder. 3- Throw a bone to Penn State who was on an island in the Northeast.

I think you Syracuse guys should worry about your own recruiting problems. Last I heard, your best two recruits are academically ineligible......

not even close to accurate 1 recruit yes was one of our better ones the other was expected to not qualify which is why we took a full class with only room for 23 or 24. The wide out might have gotten some action during the year but we have the depth to get by with about 15 wr's on our roster. We are doing quite well in recruiting this year though may actually finish with a top 25-30 class.

(06-29-2014 07:16 AM)penguino Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 03:22 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 02:51 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC picked up Missouri & Texas
ACC moved into NE corridor
B-10 grapped Nebraska & MD
can u imagine how much money B-10 could have made last 3 yrs,
if Deleney knew what he was doing.
now he has no shot at Va & NC, which was he goal to begin with.

For 61 years The ACC had Maryland, and during their expansion campaigns, they had unimpeded opportunities to acquire Rutgers. It gives me no satisfaction to diss the ACC, but "can u imagine how much money" the ACC could have made if they understood how to monetize their markets with cable TV? You're right that Delany wants UVA and UNC. It's because all of that population growth you point to is driven in large part by B1G alumni. There's a ready-made BTN audience waiting.

One B1G problem with this thinking. The ACC could never get Rutgers, and they knew it (and it wasn't because we thought we were superior to them - lets get that out of the way right up front). That's why the invite never came. RU's intent always was the B1G, like minded schools, land grant, state U's etc. Even if the ACC invited some time in the past and RU accepted, the ACC always new they would leave if the B1G ever invited them - and that was a matter of time. So to not make themselves look rejected, the invite never came.

Perfect fit for RU was never the ACC (or the Big East). The ultimate goal always was the B1G and the ACC (and Big East) knew that.

This is a pretty odd comment. Rutgers barely got in the Big 10, and its invitation was contengent on Maryland accepting or else Rutgers would be in whatever became of the BE. Rutgers end game was not waiting for the BIG. It was to get into whicever power league that offered.

(06-28-2014 06:00 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 03:20 PM)Minutemen429 Wrote:  

(06-27-2014 08:21 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 09:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-26-2014 07:17 PM)Chris02M Wrote:  at least we bring a quality basketball and lacrosse program and program with some history in football

History is what you brag about when you cant brag about the present day.

If you want to talk History though, how old is the Rutgers football program? Maryland doesn't bring quality basketball and lacrosse?

The Big Ten got the Institutions that better match the Big Ten. I don't see how you think your history touting matters in that regard but if it makes you feel better then have at it.

Maryland is up and coming in lacrosse , basketball been kinda meh the last couple years(in mens since I don't follow UConn wbb league)(kinda like our football program before marrone and shafer turned the program back towards respectability.) As for Rutgers I can't say anything good about the program sorry, except for geography lucking them into a real conference.

UConn and Syracuse are mirror athletic departments. Great basketball OK football.

basketball similar but are football program is much better than UConn's and the gap will continue to grow while there stuck in the jv club

When UConn and Rutgers were in the same conference, who was better?

(06-29-2014 07:16 AM)penguino Wrote:  

(06-29-2014 03:22 AM)33laszlo99 Wrote:  

(06-28-2014 02:51 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  SEC picked up Missouri & Texas
ACC moved into NE corridor
B-10 grapped Nebraska & MD
can u imagine how much money B-10 could have made last 3 yrs,
if Deleney knew what he was doing.
now he has no shot at Va & NC, which was he goal to begin with.

For 61 years The ACC had Maryland, and during their expansion campaigns, they had unimpeded opportunities to acquire Rutgers. It gives me no satisfaction to diss the ACC, but "can u imagine how much money" the ACC could have made if they understood how to monetize their markets with cable TV? You're right that Delany wants UVA and UNC. It's because all of that population growth you point to is driven in large part by B1G alumni. There's a ready-made BTN audience waiting.

One B1G problem with this thinking. The ACC could never get Rutgers, and they knew it (and it wasn't because we thought we were superior to them - lets get that out of the way right up front). That's why the invite never came. RU's intent always was the B1G, like minded schools, land grant, state U's etc. Even if the ACC invited some time in the past and RU accepted, the ACC always new they would leave if the B1G ever invited them - and that was a matter of time. So to not make themselves look rejected, the invite never came.

Perfect fit for RU was never the ACC (or the Big East). The ultimate goal always was the B1G and the ACC (and Big East) knew that.

Rutgers would've taken the first invite...Rutgers could fit either conference.