Remember the link of a news article about a coast to coast major conference back in the 1950s that includes all the major Independents and some big names from the PAC 12 and Big 10? Could this be a part 2 of this idea?

(10-07-2015 12:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Remember the link of a news article about a coast to coast major conference back in the 1950s that includes all the major Independents and some big names from the PAC 12 and Big 10? Could this be a part 2 of this idea?

Adding Pitt,Ga Tech,U Texas and U Kansas that brings it to 18.The other AAU schools would be UVa and UNC.

East
Ga Tech,UNC,UVA,UMD ,Rutgers,PSU,Pitt,Ohio St,Mich,Mich St

West Indiana,Purdue,Illinois,Northwestern,Wisconsin,Minn,Iowa,Nebraska,Texas,Kansas

(10-05-2015 08:45 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The goal has always been 20 teams. The B1G isn't done expanding no matter what some random yahoo on twitter says.

A link is really needed for that, since its so easy for a remark that 18 or 20 is likely the maximum limit to expansion to be misrepresented as a remark that a size of 20 is the ultimate goal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(10-06-2015 11:54 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  However, none of it matters outside of message board chest pounding.

It matters for conference realignment questions when the Big Ten is raised because several of the Big Ten schools are infested with snobs regarding university research status, and so a number of Big Ten presidents have to take perceived academic status into account as they are chasing deals to make more money on a per-school basis for the conference.

Don't believe people who make it to be about whether or not the Big Ten presidents have high-minded views on academic standards: they are all academic politicians, which means they are first and foremost politicians, they are just politicians in a fairly strange, distinctive setting. To be safe, assume that like most politicians, they would sell their own mother down the river in pursuit of their own personal ambition ... its just that the terrain that they operate in makes for a different political calculus.

Remember that with UNL the Big Ten Presidents were careful to hurry Nebraska into the conference before Nebraska was kicked out of the AAU. While the Big Ten Presidents would have been well aware that UNL was about to get kicked out (since two Big Ten Presidents were on the committee that did the kicking), they accomplished the realignment before the drop in status was more broadly known around their campuses.

I think they'll go to 16 eventually. I don't think it's any coincidence their logo looks a lot like B16.

(10-06-2015 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  So customers are really complaining that $0.10 per month was added to their premium sports tier subscription. Really?

Count me as one here in Baton Rouge. I would rather my .10 go to charity, or to a Wiccan Scholarship Fund or a Mars Colony Fund.

I just don't want my ten cents a month going to the Big Ten.

(10-06-2015 05:58 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:48 PM)bluesox Wrote:  There is a big difference between wants and gets.

If they want, they will get.

They wanted ND for years and did not get.

(10-06-2015 08:01 PM)Transic_nyc Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 01:24 PM)jrj84105 Wrote:  I can't find the minimum required number of teams for PAC dissolution- 8, 9, 10?

B1G 24:
West:
UW, UO, Furd, Cal, USC, UCLA, ASU, UA.
Central:
UU, CU, MN, IOWA, NEB, ILL, NW, WISC.
East:
IU, PUR, MSU, UM, OSU, PSU, MD, RU

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid...X-r60KBeAE

LA to NJ. This to me makes it my favorite scenario. A truly national conference (not to mention sticking it to the arrogant Domescum, who think they're above everyone else). Problem is too many factions prefer to stay regional. Also, divisional rules need to be different for basketball and Olympic Sports. Travel for football alone would be an adventure.

"Domescum". I like it. Classy and mature, it is.

Why would any "Domescum" care if this happened or not?

(10-07-2015 06:55 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(10-05-2015 08:45 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  The goal has always been 20 teams. The B1G isn't done expanding no matter what some random yahoo on twitter says.

A link is really needed for that, since its so easy for a remark that 18 or 20 is likely the maximum limit to expansion to be misrepresented as a remark that a size of 20 is the ultimate goal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(10-06-2015 11:54 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  However, none of it matters outside of message board chest pounding.

It matters for conference realignment questions when the Big Ten is raised because several of the Big Ten schools are infested with snobs regarding university research status, and so a number of Big Ten presidents have to take perceived academic status into account as they are chasing deals to make more money on a per-school basis for the conference.

Don't believe people who make it to be about whether or not the Big Ten presidents have high-minded views on academic standards: they are all academic politicians, which means they are first and foremost politicians, they are just politicians in a fairly strange, distinctive setting. To be safe, assume that like most politicians, they would sell their own mother down the river in pursuit of their own personal ambition ... its just that the terrain that they operate in makes for a different political calculus.

Remember that with UNL the Big Ten Presidents were careful to hurry Nebraska into the conference before Nebraska was kicked out of the AAU. While the Big Ten Presidents would have been well aware that UNL was about to get kicked out (since two Big Ten Presidents were on the committee that did the kicking), they accomplished the realignment before the drop in status was more broadly known around their campuses.

The 18-20 thing, from what I've read, were only in the form of studied models. The only thing to come out from those remarks were that fourteen members wasn't ideal, and that it got somehow easier and preferable beyond that number. And that was just one or two guys' opinions, and ADs' words in a conference where presidents do the work, tifwiw.

The Big Ten presidents better be ready for some amazing footwork if they tap Arizona State for ice hockey. If ASU was part of a cluster of PAC schools bringing their ice hockey forward, it would be easier to digest, but ASU alone, when you present the Nebraska acquisition that way, and can duck and weave the affiliate issue when someone like Johns Hopkins makes themselves available to you, it's like that Sesame Street song...one of these things is not like the other. The Big Ten can do whatever it wants, it thinks, but I would expect some midwestern schools to call up their congressional friends and ask "wth?"

(10-07-2015 07:17 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 04:20 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  So customers are really complaining that $0.10 per month was added to their premium sports tier subscription. Really?

Count me as one here in Baton Rouge. I would rather my .10 go to charity, or to a Wiccan Scholarship Fund or a Mars Colony Fund.

I just don't want my ten cents a month going to the Big Ten.

It's your choice. Don't subscribe to the optional sports tier.

(10-06-2015 02:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:15 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  Looking at the map,

Norman and Austin are technically are both South and West of Nebraska (the school). Seriously though, who is west of Nebraska that state that
A. They want
B. Is willing to join

The article wasn't talking about expansion of the B1G.

It was talking about expanding the markets in which the BTN is carried on the basic tier of the local cable systems.

The article also explained that adding Rutgers and Maryland had allowed the Big10 to get into millions of new homes at higher rates. Expansion is how you get on basic cable in new areas.

My .02 is the Big Ten would be looking to expand in the Hockey and Lacrosse sports only. The conference has only the minimum 6 schools in each category. Hockey and Lacrosse would be good BTN programming that can help the BTN expand in other areas of the country that have an above average interest in those sports.

(10-07-2015 08:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  My .02 is the Big Ten would be looking to expand in the Hockey and Lacrosse sports only. The conference has only the minimum 6 schools in each category. Hockey and Lacrosse would be good BTN programming that can help the BTN expand in other areas of the country that have an above average interest in those sports.

MIT have Lacrosse.

If they want more schools in those sports? They may have to invite none-AAU schools to join.

(10-07-2015 08:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 08:04 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  My .02 is the Big Ten would be looking to expand in the Hockey and Lacrosse sports only. The conference has only the minimum 6 schools in each category. Hockey and Lacrosse would be good BTN programming that can help the BTN expand in other areas of the country that have an above average interest in those sports.

MIT have Lacrosse.

If they want more schools in those sports? They may have to invite none-AAU schools to join.

MIT is D3 and not eligible for D1 sports.

This is more in the line of Arizona St. playing hockey as well as possibly Air Force who plays both hockey and lacrosse.

(10-07-2015 08:17 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  MIT is D3 and not eligible for D1 sports.

This is more in the line of Arizona St. playing hockey as well as possibly Air Force who plays both hockey and lacrosse.

So, D3 schools can step up to D1 conferences in specific sports, although only a handful (including Johns Hopkins lacrosse) are grandfathered in to allow scholarships. Other D3 schools are actually non-scholarship when they compete in D1 sports. Hockey examples include Union College and RIT. They manage to do some recruiting with academic scholarships, and that tends to work well with getting Canadian student-athletes, but that's only so effective. The B1G is probably not interested, and I don't see any reason to believe that MIT would be interested either.

U of Denver (private school) has an excellent DI hockey program. I don't know if they are grandfathered in like Johns Hopkins lacrosse, but I know they are nationally competitive.

If the B1G wants to expand the BTN in Denver, that would be one sure fire way to force the issue with Denver (and surrounding areas) cable systems.

(10-07-2015 08:02 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:24 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 02:15 PM)chrisattsu Wrote:  Looking at the map,

Norman and Austin are technically are both South and West of Nebraska (the school). Seriously though, who is west of Nebraska that state that
A. They want
B. Is willing to join

The article wasn't talking about expansion of the B1G.

It was talking about expanding the markets in which the BTN is carried on the basic tier of the local cable systems.

The article also explained that adding Rutgers and Maryland had allowed the Big10 to get into millions of new homes at higher rates. Expansion is how you get on basic cable in new areas.

It's one way, but not the only way.

The other way is to negotiate with cable systems in areas with large numbers of B1G alumni.

(10-06-2015 09:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 05:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nice try. B1G is first in academics.

Yep, by a pygmy margin.
Using the US NEWS rankings (I know everybody hates them) the B1G average per school is 58.28, while the ACC per school average is 58.5 (and that includes Louisville at a whopping ranking of #168). Adding Notre Dame to the ACC lowers the per school average to 55.8, but we won't count them as thay are not a full member of the ACC.

And those rankings are meaningless, other than as marketing to high school students. So there is your answer.

(10-06-2015 11:54 PM)CrazyPaco Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 09:10 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-06-2015 05:51 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Nice try. B1G is first in academics.

Yep, by a pygmy margin.
Using the US NEWS rankings (I know everybody hates them) the B1G average per school is 58.28, while the ACC per school average is 58.5 (and that includes Louisville at a whopping ranking of #168). Adding Notre Dame to the ACC lowers the per school average to 55.8, but we won't count them as thay are not a full member of the ACC.

ND is a full member of the ACC, as well as an active member of the ACC Academic Consortium. Don't confuse full conference membership of a school with sports participation, they aren't equivalent.

Average admission statistics widely favor the ACC, with or without ND. If you are considering undergraduate education as your basis of quality, then the ACC would be considered the top collection of schools.

Graduate research programs favor the Big Ten, as half the ACC is smaller, private schools with marginally sized graduate research programs.

The two are very close and it depends on the viewing angle, but the profiles of the schools of the two conferences are so different that it makes it almost an apples to oranges comparison. However, none of it matters outside of message board chest pounding. Outside the Ivy, which has pervasive connotations well beyond sports in popular culture, athletic conference membership does not denote academic status in any regard. Schools stand on their own merit, period. No one in their right mind is going to attend, or work at, Indiana over Vanderbilt because of their conference affiliation, nor does even $1 of research awards rely on such associations.

Your post is mostly incorrect, in all regards.

First, you're using your own personal definition for "quality" of undergraduate education. The fact is, such a thing is nearly impossible to quantify without being completely subjective about what constitutes "quality".

Admission statistics have nothing to do with the quality of education provided by the school, once those applicants matriculate. Nothing.

The Big Ten is an academic brand, known nationally. Although, I do agree with you that an undergraduate trying to decide between acceptance letters from Vanderbilt and Indiana will likely not make his/her decision solely based on conference affiliation. There are dozens of factors, such as distance, cost/scholarship offers, etc. etc.

And finally, while I would generally agree that conference affiliation will not influence the award of federal grant, it is absolutely untrue that PI proposals from certain highly regarded schools will not receive preferential consideration in the minds of some reviewers/directors over others. Does that always happen? I doubt it. Maybe not even most of the time. But I would not be surprised to find out it does happen, sometimes.

(10-07-2015 09:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  U of Denver (private school) has an excellent DI hockey program. I don't know if they are grandfathered in like Johns Hopkins lacrosse, but I know they are nationally competitive.

If the B1G wants to expand the BTN in Denver, that would be one sure fire way to force the issue with Denver (and surrounding areas) cable systems.

Denver is D1 all around so no grandfather rule needed.

South of Nebraska: the entire Big XII except for Iowa State - I believe that.
West of Nebraska: Texas Tech and the entire Pac-12 - weird.