(09-11-2014 08:06 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I have no sympathy for the B1G's woes. Not after they tried to dismantle the ACC by snagging Maryland. (It was inevitable they were going to get MD due to MD's financial situation and the school's president and AD having previous ties to the B1G).

They'll be ok. The only thing they have going for themselves is their network... Which is another reason not to feel sorry for them. :)

lol @ someone bagging on another conference for trying to "dismantle" the ACC after what the ACC has pulled over the last decade.

THe big 10 needs to invite Florida State, if they say no maybe invite Miami but get into Florida. Heck, maybe invite both FSU and Miami to get to 16. Although, i do like the kU + OU combo to get to 16 too. Either or both options is an easy solution to the big 10 football problem.

(09-11-2014 07:42 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  That article has some truth to it but look at the example of Oregon. Oregon has built a nationally competitive team with a poor local recruiting footprint. The bulk of their top prospects come from greater than 4 hours away, mainly from California. As far as climate, Eugene sucks compared to anywhere is Southern California.

Now playing in California certainly helps in recruiting California kids. So expansion into fertile recruiting grounds should then help the Big 10 talent base as well. The question is can and will the Big 10 expand all the way into Texas, Florida, and or Georgia in an effort to save its football.

Maybe the Rust Belt could just get their crap together so people want to live there instead of the south.

(09-11-2014 09:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:06 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I have no sympathy for the B1G's woes. Not after they tried to dismantle the ACC by snagging Maryland. (It was inevitable they were going to get MD due to MD's financial situation and the school's president and AD having previous ties to the B1G).

They'll be ok. The only thing they have going for themselves is their network... Which is another reason not to feel sorry for them. :)

lol @ someone bagging on another conference for trying to "dismantle" the ACC after what the ACC has pulled over the last decade.

AMEN! The ACC wouldn't exist if they hadn't stolen teams from the Big East.

Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany screwed the conference by focusing only on increasing TV revenue rather than improving the quality of the product.

Over half the programs (Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Minn., Iowa, Northwestern) have had limited success and no 5-star wants to play for them due to history and location. MSU, Wisconsin, PSU, Nebraska, O$U and UM used to be good, but are now just average.

The simple fact is the SEC and ACC strengthened their conferences by adding quality teams while the Big10 hasn't - and there's little you can do now to fix it (unless you drop the losers).

The problem demographically with the BIG 10 isn't the top dogs of the conference....its the middle and bottom.....

Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State are national brands, and just have to win some to start recruiting well

It's Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota....those schools struggle for recruits. It's not like Texas or Florida, where Houston or Baylor can all of the sudden start competing because you've got talent all around.

Purdue, home of Drew Brees, used to be good! But they fell on hard times and have never recovered...Iowa?? they're pretty much equivalent to Texas Tech

the REST of the conference has fallen off, and I'm not quite sure how you get them going again.....

Ohio State probably would have been better off ditching the Big 10 and heading to the ACC, or even the SEC lol

Nebraska was never the same once the recruiting speed from southern states stopped. Texas entered the Big XII and their fortunes recruiting-wise flip-flopped. I'm not sure if Nebraska heading to the Big 10 was a good idea....

the thing is- you look at things since FBS came about in 1978...

SEC/Southern ACC schools(Clemson, GT, FSU, Miami)- 78s,79,80,81,83,87,89,90s,91s,92,93,96,98,99,01,03s,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13
the rest- 78s, 82,84,85,86,88,90s,91s,94,95,97s*2,00,02,03s,04,05

So total is SEC/Southern ACC- 20 plus 4 split 24 years with at least a share
the rest 11 plus 1 split both sides, plus 4 split 16 years with at least a share

bcs era though- SEC/Southern ACC- 11 plus 1 split, others 4 plus 1 split.

As I said in prior posts, a lot of this is integration. In the 12 years prior- only Alabama in '73 in a split title had won a national championship.

(09-11-2014 08:13 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 07:42 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  That article has some truth to it but look at the example of Oregon. Oregon has built a nationally competitive team with a poor local recruiting footprint. The bulk of their top prospects come from greater than 4 hours away, mainly from California. As far as climate, Eugene sucks compared to anywhere is Southern California.

Now playing in California certainly helps in recruiting California kids. So expansion into fertile recruiting grounds should then help the Big 10 talent base as well. The question is can and will the Big 10 expand all the way into Texas, Florida, and or Georgia in an effort to save its football.

I think Oregon is a bad example because of the schools affiliation with Nike. Without that particular brand association, the Ducks performance would mirror the other PNW teams.

Washington football under Don James was as good as Oregon football is now. They recruited well in California. They have money, and they have the best fan base in the Pac outside of USC. UW can be that good again, if Petersen is the right guy for them.

(09-11-2014 10:10 AM)mac6115cd Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:06 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I have no sympathy for the B1G's woes. Not after they tried to dismantle the ACC by snagging Maryland. (It was inevitable they were going to get MD due to MD's financial situation and the school's president and AD having previous ties to the B1G).

They'll be ok. The only thing they have going for themselves is their network... Which is another reason not to feel sorry for them. :)

lol @ someone bagging on another conference for trying to "dismantle" the ACC after what the ACC has pulled over the last decade.

AMEN! The ACC wouldn't exist if they hadn't stolen teams from the Big East.

Big 10 commissioner Jim Delany screwed the conference by focusing only on increasing TV revenue rather than improving the quality of the product.

Over half the programs (Maryland, Rutgers, Indiana, Illinois, Purdue, Minn., Iowa, Northwestern) have had limited success and no 5-star wants to play for them due to history and location. MSU, Wisconsin, PSU, Nebraska, O$U and UM used to be good, but are now just average.

The simple fact is the SEC and ACC strengthened their conferences by adding quality teams while the Big10 hasn't - and there's little you can do now to fix it (unless you drop the losers).

MSU used to be good? They won the Rose Bowl against the PAC 12 champ last year... they've had one bad half against Oregon and all of a sudden they used to be good? I've always been soft on cincy because they are like MSU is being the 2nd biggest name in the state, but MSU would kick their ass.

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(09-11-2014 08:45 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 07:42 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  That article has some truth to it but look at the example of Oregon. Oregon has built a nationally competitive team with a poor local recruiting footprint. The bulk of their top prospects come from greater than 4 hours away, mainly from California. As far as climate, Eugene sucks compared to anywhere is Southern California.

Now playing in California certainly helps in recruiting California kids. So expansion into fertile recruiting grounds should then help the Big 10 talent base as well. The question is can and will the Big 10 expand all the way into Texas, Florida, and or Georgia in an effort to save its football.

If the Big 10 expanded into North Carolina, Georgia, and Florida their recruiting would be no better than it is now. Southern kids are going to play near home if they can. And they will want to go to a conference that turns out pro athletes and that is the SEC and ACC in the Southeast.

In the NFL currently: ACC 406 (not including Notre Dame since they aren't a member for football) Big Ten 412. http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/...lege/2014/

I agree the majority of players want to stay close to home, but the Big 10 doesn't need to dominate those states to improve their teams. Maybe 3-5 prospects per year per team. Michigan State and Wisconsin lost in the 2nd half because of depth. If MSU had one elite player on offense to counter Mariota, that game turns out different. If Wisconsin had an actual division 1 quarterback, so does that game. Michigan and OSU lost cause of coaching and recruiting can fix that.

Washington had 6 top 10 appearances end of year in James 18 year run at Washington. 3 top 5's.

Oregon in this run they're on- in the last 18 years- 7 top 10's and 4 top 5's....
but I would say if you look last 6 years- 5 top 10's and 3 top 5's(only one not in top 10 they were 11). James never had a stretch like that. The 1 thing that Oregon needs to complete this run is a title. That's the one and only area that Washington has over Oregon- even though it's a split title.

Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

Cant believe I'm saying this, but thank you quo!

Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

Big is not out of the playoff picture. Any Big Ten team that is 12-1 could be in the playoff.
But why is the media just picking up on this now. In the last 44 years the Big Ten has
1 outright football title, OSU in 2002-03, and only 1 bball title in 25 years, MSU 2000.
Do they have good teams, yes of course.

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

last 8 years the Big Ten kind of fell apart though. 5-10 last 8 years. ACC in those same 8 years went 5-6 with their current membership. Pretty much- the Big Ten hasn't recovered since Florida blew up Ohio St in 2006.

(09-11-2014 09:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:06 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I have no sympathy for the B1G's woes. Not after they tried to dismantle the ACC by snagging Maryland. (It was inevitable they were going to get MD due to MD's financial situation and the school's president and AD having previous ties to the B1G).

They'll be ok. The only thing they have going for themselves is their network... Which is another reason not to feel sorry for them. :)

lol @ someone bagging on another conference for trying to "dismantle" the ACC after what the ACC has pulled over the last decade.

The B1G could have dismantled the ACC because the ACC did not have a GOR in place at the time. Now they do so ACC schools are no longer an option.

As far as the ACC vs. the old BE is concerned, consider the ACC being more transparent by expanding in newer markets and by putting football on the front burner unlike the BE. I truly believe both conferences could have coexisted. However, it did not work out that way.

(09-11-2014 11:39 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:06 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I have no sympathy for the B1G's woes. Not after they tried to dismantle the ACC by snagging Maryland. (It was inevitable they were going to get MD due to MD's financial situation and the school's president and AD having previous ties to the B1G).

They'll be ok. The only thing they have going for themselves is their network... Which is another reason not to feel sorry for them. :)

lol @ someone bagging on another conference for trying to "dismantle" the ACC after what the ACC has pulled over the last decade.

The B1G could have dismantled the ACC because the ACC did not have a GOR in place at the time. Now they do so ACC schools are no longer an option.

As far as the ACC vs. the old BE is concerned, consider the ACC being more transparent by expanding in newer markets and by putting football on the front burner unlike the BE. I truly believe both conferences could have coexisted. However, it did not work out that way.

Who knows but the ACC's BE raid screwed up a lot more than just he BE. That's why I thought it was kind of funny that any ACC fan would complain about another conference raiding the ACC. That ACC BE raid a decade ago pretty much destroyed CUSA 1.0.

(09-11-2014 11:41 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:39 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 09:54 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 08:06 AM)LUcanesfan Wrote:  I have no sympathy for the B1G's woes. Not after they tried to dismantle the ACC by snagging Maryland. (It was inevitable they were going to get MD due to MD's financial situation and the school's president and AD having previous ties to the B1G).

They'll be ok. The only thing they have going for themselves is their network... Which is another reason not to feel sorry for them. :)

lol @ someone bagging on another conference for trying to "dismantle" the ACC after what the ACC has pulled over the last decade.

The B1G could have dismantled the ACC because the ACC did not have a GOR in place at the time. Now they do so ACC schools are no longer an option.

As far as the ACC vs. the old BE is concerned, consider the ACC being more transparent by expanding in newer markets and by putting football on the front burner unlike the BE. I truly believe both conferences could have coexisted. However, it did not work out that way.

Who knows but the ACC's BE raid screwed up a lot more than just he BE. That's why I thought it was kind of funny that any ACC fan would complain about another conference raiding the ACC. That ACC BE raid a decade ago pretty much destroyed CUSA 1.0.

If you believe the reports the seeds for the first ACC raid were planted by the Big East commissioner seeking a football merger.

http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2003-05...r-swofford

Quote:Big East Conference Commissioner Mike Tranghese, who publicly scolded Atlantic Coast Conference Commissioner John Swofford last month for talking to Big East schools about expansion, first explored the possibility with the ACC as early as 1997.

Sources said Tranghese had conversations with Gene Corrigan, then commissioner of the ACC, about several possibilities. Most prominent was the merging of the two conferences for football.

A year later, after Swofford had replaced Corrigan as the ACC's commissioner, Tranghese initiated a meeting at the Atlanta airport to explore the possibility again. At that time, he was concerned about the Big Ten raiding the Big East.

Quote:Corrigan and Bill Carr, a former Florida athletic director, did a study for the Big East in the late 1990s after Corrigan left the ACC. Carr concluded the football and basketball schools should go in different directions, but Corrigan thought otherwise. Carr's finding could explain Tranghese's interest in a football merger.

In a New York Daily News story last month, Tranghese said, "I have no use for the ACC right now. They're a bunch of hypocrites. They operate in the dark. They'll never acknowledge this, but I'm aware the ACC for the last couple of years, without ever picking up the phone or calling me, has basically gone out and tried to convince our teams to enter their league."

Robinson, now the athletic director at The Citadel, found it "wrong and ironic" that Tranghese went after Swofford.

"John only pursued now what Mike was after a few years ago," Robinson said. "I guess Mike felt it was OK back then because he did it in a meeting with both conferences, but the intent was still the same. The landscape of college athletics has changed."

Quote:"When I see what is happening now," Robinson said, "I have to believe the 1998 meeting was one of the preliminary steps in leading the situation to where it is. Miami definitely had some interest, and Syracuse was listening intently."

Robinson said the ACC did case studies on Miami, Syracuse and Boston College, the three schools with a chance to move now, and Tranghese was aware they were done. He also said several ideas were discussed from a complete merger of schools that played football to the move of only a few schools with Miami, Syracuse and Boston College the most prominently discussed.

Quote:Robinson, a member of the Division I-A basketball committee, believes college athletics is headed toward five mega-conferences: the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, Big 12 and Pac-10.

The Big East was doomed to fail unless it jettisoned off the bball schools. Internally as an organization is was
kinda messed up.

(09-11-2014 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

last 8 years the Big Ten kind of fell apart though. 5-10 last 8 years. ACC in those same 8 years went 5-6 with their current membership. Pretty much- the Big Ten hasn't recovered since Florida blew up Ohio St in 2006.

We can parse and spin the data a bunch of ways. E.g., if we subtract out last year, the B1G was 5-8 the previous 7 years while the ACC was 3-6, and two of those wins came against Big East teams. The ACC was actually lousy last year, about the only good thing they DID do was win their two BCS bowl games, one by a Clemson team that South Carolina had just beaten soundly and wouldn't have made a BCS bowl save for the rules that kept 3 SEC teams and thus much more worthy South Carolina out, and another by FSU in a game that FSU was outplayed and behind almost the whole game and barely eeked out in the last seconds.

Overall, you look at the BCS era, and the B1G's performance was not bad, not worthy of special criticism.

(09-11-2014 12:30 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:34 AM)stever20 Wrote:  

(09-11-2014 11:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Remember, during the BCS era, the B1G had both the 3rd most BCS bowl wins and the 3rd best winning percentage.

The B1G is clearly not as good as the SEC, but subtract out the SEC and its national bowl performance the past 15 years is clearly better than the ACC and on a par with the Big 12, and not far behind the PAC.

The B1G takes more criticism for football than it deserves.

last 8 years the Big Ten kind of fell apart though. 5-10 last 8 years. ACC in those same 8 years went 5-6 with their current membership. Pretty much- the Big Ten hasn't recovered since Florida blew up Ohio St in 2006.

We can parse and spin the data a bunch of ways. E.g., if we subtract out last year, the B1G was 5-8 the previous 7 years while the ACC was 3-6, and two of those wins came against Big East teams. The ACC was actually lousy last year, about the only good thing they DID do was win their two BCS bowl games, one by a Clemson team that South Carolina had just beaten soundly and wouldn't have made a BCS bowl save for the rules that kept 3 SEC teams and thus much more worthy South Carolina out, and another by FSU in a game that FSU was outplayed and behind almost the whole game and barely eeked out in the last seconds.

Overall, you look at the BCS era, and the B1G's performance was not bad, not worthy of special criticism.

The thing is though- 4 of the Big Ten's wins were in the 1st 2 years of the BCS. Last 14 years of the BCS- Big Ten won 9 games. Oh- and btw, if there was rules that allowed 3 SEC teams- Clemson still would have gotten in last year as an ACC team replacing FSU in the Orange. It's Oklahoma that would not have gone last year.