(09-25-2018 10:07 PM)madizoned-level2004 Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 08:26 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Well since they have even yet to get a full cut of TV money I doubt the fellow B1G Presidents are holding it against Rutgers that they aren't up to B1G snuff when it comes to infrastructure.

As for the attendance yes, losing and losing BIG does that to any fanbase.

Northwestern: Less than a decade ago



Purdue:



Illinois:


Indiana:

Not just losing, but Rutgers fans are fair weather in the literal sense. I was at two of the games pictured on the previous page, and left early both times. I remember the torrential rain and 40mph winds of that 2014 noreaster storm Wisconsin game and the rain that turned to sleet by the 3rd quarter of that Penn State game in 2016. Everyone, home and visiting fans alike, cleared out, into the concourses or in our case to a bar by the train station. Wind-driven ice pellets to the face aren’t fun whether your team is winning or losing.

Eh, the storms aren't a positive, but the wind does a decent job of clearing out that general New Jersey stink that seems to stick to you at the Lombardi rest stop and follows you damn near to Swedesboro.

(09-26-2018 08:13 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  B1G revenues have skyrocketed since those schools were added. Maybe it's just a coincidence, but even if so you can't argue that they have cost the conference money.

Possibly. However, the conference got rich off this based on a cable and distribution model that is changing AND that this move is still relatively recent.

Do I think Rutgers is gone by 2030? No. But by 2050? Maybe. A lot can change, but much may not. One thing that won't...what it costs to run athletics at a top level. Assuming no significant changes other than that, count me as one who thinks Rutgers, as is, won't be able to keep up. And then may be asked to leave. "As is" being the variable.

But, even so, Rutgers may be no different than a lot of schools, who, if costs keep skyrocketing, self select out of this stuff. A lot of public money still helps keep this stuff afloat. It shouldn't. And that could be a ticking clock.

I feel the same way about Maryland, but some of their other sports generate interest, and could maybe hang in there. Both operate in areas that see added cost just due to location.

Realistically, I think anything's possible. Are we forgetting that Penn State may have been asked to leave because of the Sandusky thing? That due diligence needed to study that nuclear option? It didn't matter how much money Penn State could print. I don't think it's much of a reach that Rutgers or Maryland could face something similar because it has problems that impact the rest of the conference.

(09-25-2018 09:44 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 09:35 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 10:09 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  From what I understand the NCAA essentially told the MAC that they were going to be IAA and the MAC essentially said heck no and refused to accept it (for example I believe they did not try to be part of the playoff). By the next year they had convinced the NCAA that they should be in IA.

Yes, the info in that Reddit post was about HOW they said "No" and got the NCAA to relent.

When they only had 2 1A schools, and were classed as 1AA, they refused to participate in the 1AA championship, so their 1A (FBS) schools were still potentially bowl eligible. And with the rule "more than half 1A schools", they set about getting four more MAC schools over the bar, which they succeeded doing the next year. When WMU was going to slip back below the line, they showed they were willing to drop to 9 if need be, and in the third year of the process, the NCAA relented, deciding that WMU's status would be determined when the season was over.

The theory on how 1A and 1AA would stabilize things after the Ivy League rule was repealed seemed to be that schools would prefer a fair shot at a second tier national championship over perennial also-ran status at the top level, so once the Ivy League rule was abolished making some very high status schools 1AA, the 1A/1AA split would stabilize things. The premise was silly, of course, and the MAC fought tooth and nail to hold onto its perennial also-ran status in 1A.

What's the Ivy League rule you mention?

The Reddit post uses that term ... I don't have the rules for the original Divisional Split, so I'm hazy on how the Ivy League, MAC, Southland and MVC original qualified as Division 1A conferences when the divisional split was first done in the 1970s. However, in in 1981 they were cut back to the four which knocked out the Ivy League, MAC, Southland and the MVC ... and since that affected the Ivy League, it's a lot easier to find those rule by searching online.

The MAC was right on the edge, with two 1A schools, two schools that argued that they met the criteria and appealed (but were rejected), and two schools that were close, and they clawed back. With the (passed 1981, effective 1982) rule that you were 1A if you played in a conference with six 1A schools, six was enough. That seems to have been amended to "a majority" out of fear that the original rule would be gamed by, eg, 12 schools forming a conference where only half were 1A ... eg if four MAC schools were 1A qualifiers and the whole MAC got in on the basis of the MAC inviting two 1A qualifying members of the MVC.

Recall that this was all part of the collection of big schools that were trying to break the NCAA TV contract using the CFA as a vehicle. Getting the Ivy League, MAC, Southland, and MVC out of the "big schools club" sharing in the common NCAA Division 1A TV rights was the whole point of the exercise

But then "a majority" opens up to game playing in the opposite direction, where kicking the furthest from qualifying schools to the curb can reduce the number of 1A qualifying schools you needed. "Oops".

A little while later, the whole TV rights landscape was changed, when the courts decided that the NCAA could not impose hand over of a school's TV rights as a condition of membership, so the big schools lost their strong incentive to push for a smaller Division 1A.

(09-26-2018 10:40 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 09:44 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 09:35 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 10:09 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  From what I understand the NCAA essentially told the MAC that they were going to be IAA and the MAC essentially said heck no and refused to accept it (for example I believe they did not try to be part of the playoff). By the next year they had convinced the NCAA that they should be in IA.

Yes, the info in that Reddit post was about HOW they said "No" and got the NCAA to relent.

When they only had 2 1A schools, and were classed as 1AA, they refused to participate in the 1AA championship, so their 1A (FBS) schools were still potentially bowl eligible. And with the rule "more than half 1A schools", they set about getting four more MAC schools over the bar, which they succeeded doing the next year. When WMU was going to slip back below the line, they showed they were willing to drop to 9 if need be, and in the third year of the process, the NCAA relented, deciding that WMU's status would be determined when the season was over.

The theory on how 1A and 1AA would stabilize things after the Ivy League rule was repealed seemed to be that schools would prefer a fair shot at a second tier national championship over perennial also-ran status at the top level, so once the Ivy League rule was abolished making some very high status schools 1AA, the 1A/1AA split would stabilize things. The premise was silly, of course, and the MAC fought tooth and nail to hold onto its perennial also-ran status in 1A.

What's the Ivy League rule you mention?

The Reddit post uses that term ... I don't have the rules for the original Divisional Split, so I'm hazy on how the Ivy League, MAC, Southland and MVC original qualified as Division 1A conferences when the divisional split was first done in the 1970s. However, in in 1981 they were cut back to the four which knocked out the Ivy League, MAC, Southland and the MVC ... and since that affected the Ivy League, it's a lot easier to find those rule by searching online.

The MAC was right on the edge, with two 1A schools, two schools that argued that they met the criteria and appealed (but were rejected), and two schools that were close, and they clawed back. With the (passed 1981, effective 1982) rule that you were 1A if you played in a conference with six 1A schools, six was enough. That seems to have been amended to "a majority" out of fear that the original rule would be gamed by, eg, 12 schools forming a conference where only half were 1A ... eg if four MAC schools were 1A qualifiers and the whole MAC got in on the basis of the MAC inviting two 1A qualifying members of the MVC.

Recall that this was all part of the collection of big schools that were trying to break the NCAA TV contract using the CFA as a vehicle. Getting the Ivy League, MAC, Southland, and MVC out of the "big schools club" sharing in the common NCAA Division 1A TV rights was the whole point of the exercise

But then "a majority" opens up to game playing in the opposite direction, where kicking the furthest from qualifying schools to the curb can reduce the number of 1A qualifying schools you needed. "Oops".

A little while later, the whole TV rights landscape was changed, when the courts decided that the NCAA could not impose hand over of a school's TV rights as a condition of membership, so the big schools lost their strong incentive to push for a smaller Division 1A.

When Division I football was split into I-A and I-AA, a school could be I-A if they sponsored enough sports and played a I-A schedule -OR- met home average attendance (17k per year once every four in a 30k stadium, or over four years in a smaller stadium), home and away attendance (20k once every four years in 30k stadium or 20k over four years) -OR- be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the criteria.

In 1981 the -OR- between sport sponsorship and attendance/conference became an AND.

(09-25-2018 11:19 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I would suggest that a school really can't move more than one cultural region from it's home and feel comfortable. That's why Syracuse and BC are odd fits in the ACC.

I think you might be onto something, but 76% of BC's students are from out-of-state. So I'm not sure how many really identify with the culture of the region. https://www.studypoint.com/admissions/boston-college/

(09-25-2018 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think it extremely unlikely we will in the forseeable future see anyone kicked out of an A5 league. First, when has it ever happened? Every case I can think of where a school has left a A5 league it has been on its own volition.

Second, the money is now so large that any school on the chopping block would fight it to the death legally. E.g. when Temple was kicked out of the Big East in 2001 there was just very little money involved. But now we are talking tens of millions each year.

It would just be so onerous to do that I don't think any conference will have the stomach for it.

Also Temple was an associate member in the Big East, so it was easier to kick them out.

(09-27-2018 12:31 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 11:19 AM)Statefan Wrote:  I would suggest that a school really can't move more than one cultural region from it's home and feel comfortable. That's why Syracuse and BC are odd fits in the ACC.

I think you might be onto something, but 76% of BC's students are from out-of-state. So I'm not sure how many really identify with the culture of the region. https://www.studypoint.com/admissions/boston-college/

Weird thing is, institutionally and athletically, Cuse does fit. It should have been them moving to the ACC instead of FSU, not being made to wait all those years.

If they don’t, then maybe the question is what “culture” is there in the ACC? Because BC is far from FSU and UL, all three of them don’t look like the UVA and NC “core.” UMD felt alienated enough over time with that growth...

(09-24-2018 08:04 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  I don't like Rutgers but can we please stop making threads about kicking them out of the B1G? They haven't been good since they joined the conference. So what? If a conference could kick a school out for being perennial underachievers Wake, Vandy, EMU, and Northwestern would have all been kicked by now.

Up until a couple weeks ago, Northwestern had more wins over an 11-year span than Michigan.

(09-27-2018 11:08 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  When Division I football was split into I-A and I-AA, a school could be I-A if they sponsored enough sports and played a I-A schedule -OR- met home average attendance (17k per year once every four in a 30k stadium, or over four years in a smaller stadium), home and away attendance (20k once every four years in 30k stadium or 20k over four years) -OR- be a member of a conference where more than half the members met the criteria.

In 1981 the -OR- between sport sponsorship and attendance/conference became an AND.

Thanks. So the Ivy League rule was playing a I-A schedule and sponsoring enough sports was sufficient ... and it was changed to be necessary but not sufficient. An individual school could play a 1A schedule with their OOC play if they had enough 1A members in the conference to make it work and enough OOC dates to work with, and a conference wouldn't deliberately force out their best football members by setting up a conference schedule that didn't let them stay 1A.

Ironically, not all that long after the rule change successfully got rid of most, though not all, of the conferences it was targeting, the urgency in getting rid of "also-ran" FBS conferences faded. Though it also may be that the MAC was not as firmly in the cross-hairs, since the Big Ten and Pac-8 were not the strongest of supporters of the CFP approach, and (like the Pac-8 and the Big West, which stayed 1A on the majority of the conference 1A rule), the Big Ten would have wanted MAC games to count as 1A games.

(09-27-2018 12:44 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think it extremely unlikely we will in the forseeable future see anyone kicked out of an A5 league. First, when has it ever happened? Every case I can think of where a school has left a A5 league it has been on its own volition.

Second, the money is now so large that any school on the chopping block would fight it to the death legally. E.g. when Temple was kicked out of the Big East in 2001 there was just very little money involved. But now we are talking tens of millions each year.

It would just be so onerous to do that I don't think any conference will have the stomach for it.

Also Temple was an associate member in the Big East, so it was easier to kick them out.

Sigh...

Temple was not an "Associate" member of the Big East. In fact, they were not members of the Big East at all. They were members of the A10.

Little history. When the Big East started, they did not offer football. The football playing members of the Big East were either independents in football or played in other conferences. When the Big East formed, the football playing members (Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, etc...) decided that that they would form a new, FOOTBALL conference: The Big East Football Conference, that shared the "Big East" name but was autonomous from the Big East conference in terms of governance. The Big East Football Conference could negotiate bowl contracts, etc... apart from the Big East; it also made sense from a revenue perspective because it meant that the members of the Football Conference could keep their revenue separate from the rest of the conference. (A parallel existed between the "Missouri Valley Conference" and the "Missouri Valley Football Conference." THIS (The Big East Football Conference) was what Temple (and Virginia Tech at one point) football joined.

The arrangement proved bulky and balky though. It made more sense to either be an "all sports" conference or for the non-football members to go their own way. The two agendas were at odds with each other. This is what eventually prompted Boston College to look to leave, and which triggered the first ACC raid in 2002. After 2004, the Big East decided to go the "all sports conference" and the Big East Football Conference ceased to exist (becoming just a part of the Big East). Temple football was left homeless. There was some discussion about whether Temple would join the Big East but, (a) Villanova was already there, (b) Temple had underperformed in football and hadn't shown any intention of investing or improving (to that point), and © Temple was a member of the A10 and they had repeatedly said they were committed to that conference. So, when the Big East Football Conference ceased to exist, Temple had to fare for themselves.

Temple would become "associate" members of the MAC, but they were never part of the Big East Conference.

(09-29-2018 10:37 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 12:44 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think it extremely unlikely we will in the forseeable future see anyone kicked out of an A5 league. First, when has it ever happened? Every case I can think of where a school has left a A5 league it has been on its own volition.

Second, the money is now so large that any school on the chopping block would fight it to the death legally. E.g. when Temple was kicked out of the Big East in 2001 there was just very little money involved. But now we are talking tens of millions each year.

It would just be so onerous to do that I don't think any conference will have the stomach for it.

Also Temple was an associate member in the Big East, so it was easier to kick them out.

Sigh...

Temple was not an "Associate" member of the Big East. In fact, they were not members of the Big East at all. They were members of the A10.

Little history. When the Big East started, they did not offer football. The football playing members of the Big East were either independents in football or played in other conferences. When the Big East formed, the football playing members (Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, etc...) decided that that they would form a new, FOOTBALL conference: The Big East Football Conference, that shared the "Big East" name but was autonomous from the Big East conference in terms of governance. The Big East Football Conference could negotiate bowl contracts, etc... apart from the Big East; it also made sense from a revenue perspective because it meant that the members of the Football Conference could keep their revenue separate from the rest of the conference. (A parallel existed between the "Missouri Valley Conference" and the "Missouri Valley Football Conference." THIS (The Big East Football Conference) was what Temple (and Virginia Tech at one point) football joined.

The arrangement proved bulky and balky though. It made more sense to either be an "all sports" conference or for the non-football members to go their own way. The two agendas were at odds with each other. This is what eventually prompted Boston College to look to leave, and which triggered the first ACC raid in 2002. After 2004, the Big East decided to go the "all sports conference" and the Big East Football Conference ceased to exist (becoming just a part of the Big East). Temple football was left homeless. There was some discussion about whether Temple would join the Big East but, (a) Villanova was already there, (b) Temple had underperformed in football and hadn't shown any intention of investing or improving (to that point), and © Temple was a member of the A10 and they had repeatedly said they were committed to that conference. So, when the Big East Football Conference ceased to exist, Temple had to fare for themselves.

Temple would become "associate" members of the MAC, but they were never part of the Big East Conference.

Do you have a source for this little history of the "Big East Football Conference"?

(09-25-2018 10:58 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  What if there is nobody watching that team on tv or in person. Adding Rutgers is losing money for the Big 10 by that pictures alone. Miami Florida looked like that under their scandals.

Miami's attendance is much better than Rutgers. The main reason why people make fun of Miami's attendance is because it's pretty low for a team that's had so much success over the last 35 years. Miami's attendance is usually middle of power conference teams while Rutgers is usually at or toward the bottom. Miami had attendance of 58,682 last year while Rutgers had attendance of less than 40,000, according to the NCAA. http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/football_r...e/2017.pdf

(09-24-2018 07:57 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 07:57 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

The only reason Rutgers doesn't make sense right now is because they aren't good.

The Big 10 has always told other schools that you have to be good to be in the Big 10 and have a shot of being good. RU doesn't have a shot and was not good.

Since when? Delaney must have ignored that advice. Maryland and Rutgers were not added because they were powerhouses. They were added to appease the eastern schools. Nebraska was supposed to be the powerhouse addition, and look how that has turned out so far.

PSU was the only eastern school in the Big 10 before MD and Rutgers joined. And I suspect PSU didn't have very much influence in the BIG in December 2012 since it was right after the Sandusky scandal. I think it's a little ridiculous to invite teams to appease just one conference member anyway.

MD and Rutgers were invited to the Big 10 a few days after ND's ACC deal was announced. I had forgotten about this until I read some old threads.

I wonder if Maryland was invited to the BIG as revenge for the ACC permanently shutting the door on ND, and Rutgers was added because the BIG needed a 14th team and couldn't find anybody else.

(09-25-2018 08:21 AM)Bogg Wrote:  Football affiliates shouldn't really count as members that got kicked out for the purposes of this discussion - affiliates that don't have full membership rights can generally be dropped without any more difficulty than informing the affiliate you aren't renewing the agreement. Removing an actual full voting member is another animal entirely because every other school knows they're setting a precedent that they could be shown the door as well down the line.

I'm pretty sure, but not positive, that Temple was allowed to vote on Big East football matters before they got kicked out.

I don't think Temple's expulsion is 100% analagous to Idaho and NMSU in the Sun Belt, since Idaho and NMSU were informed that it very well might be temporary when they first joined the conference. Temple on the other hand was supposed to be a permanent Big East football member. There was even some reason for Temple to believe they might eventually gain all-sports membership, since WVU, Rutgers and Va. Tech had also originally been football only Big East members.

With that being said, I do agree that kicking Temple out of the Big East was easier to do than kicking Rutgers out of the BIG, due to Rutger's all sports status.

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

Jesus God YES.

It's about as ridiculous as people who claim the next round of realignment will bring Iowa State & Rice into the B1G.

People forget about the THEY NEED TO ADD VALUE into their thinking. Adding a Texas or Oklahoma ADDS VALUE to the conference. It ADDS VALUE to potential rights deals.

I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"


I mean they're a fine MAC school, but a B1G school? Child please.....

I agree that the Big 10 adding Buffalo is ridiculous. I think the BIG should have just stayed at 12 after adding Nebraska, and not added anybody else.

(09-29-2018 10:54 AM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(09-29-2018 10:37 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(09-27-2018 12:44 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(09-25-2018 07:49 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think it extremely unlikely we will in the forseeable future see anyone kicked out of an A5 league. First, when has it ever happened? Every case I can think of where a school has left a A5 league it has been on its own volition.

Second, the money is now so large that any school on the chopping block would fight it to the death legally. E.g. when Temple was kicked out of the Big East in 2001 there was just very little money involved. But now we are talking tens of millions each year.

It would just be so onerous to do that I don't think any conference will have the stomach for it.

Also Temple was an associate member in the Big East, so it was easier to kick them out.

Sigh...

Temple was not an "Associate" member of the Big East. In fact, they were not members of the Big East at all. They were members of the A10.

Little history. When the Big East started, they did not offer football. The football playing members of the Big East were either independents in football or played in other conferences. When the Big East formed, the football playing members (Pitt, WVU, Syracuse, etc...) decided that that they would form a new, FOOTBALL conference: The Big East Football Conference, that shared the "Big East" name but was autonomous from the Big East conference in terms of governance. The Big East Football Conference could negotiate bowl contracts, etc... apart from the Big East; it also made sense from a revenue perspective because it meant that the members of the Football Conference could keep their revenue separate from the rest of the conference. (A parallel existed between the "Missouri Valley Conference" and the "Missouri Valley Football Conference." THIS (The Big East Football Conference) was what Temple (and Virginia Tech at one point) football joined.

The arrangement proved bulky and balky though. It made more sense to either be an "all sports" conference or for the non-football members to go their own way. The two agendas were at odds with each other. This is what eventually prompted Boston College to look to leave, and which triggered the first ACC raid in 2002. After 2004, the Big East decided to go the "all sports conference" and the Big East Football Conference ceased to exist (becoming just a part of the Big East). Temple football was left homeless. There was some discussion about whether Temple would join the Big East but, (a) Villanova was already there, (b) Temple had underperformed in football and hadn't shown any intention of investing or improving (to that point), and © Temple was a member of the A10 and they had repeatedly said they were committed to that conference. So, when the Big East Football Conference ceased to exist, Temple had to fare for themselves.

Temple would become "associate" members of the MAC, but they were never part of the Big East Conference.

Do you have a source for this little history of the "Big East Football Conference"?

Would also like to see a source. Not saying he’s wrong but sites online call Temple an associate FB member so giving McKinney an attitude for thinking that is a bit ridiculous.

The Big East's foray into football was not a completely seperate arrangement but I do think their finances were somewhat differentiated. Rutgers and eventually WVU got full invites to the Big East mainly because one of the networks approached the football side and offered a deal for football and basketball rights but as associate members those two couldn't vote of conference matters like tv rights for basketball so in order to make the deal go through as a bundle they needed to be voting members.

The Philadelphia Enquirer story I read on Temple's ouster indirectly supports the seperate football conference story when it refers to "the eight team league" ... but it was quite explicit that Temple had been voted OUT of that league due to years of failing to meet membership criteria. They needed a No vote on the ouster from two other members and failed (since 5/8<2/3). Whether or not this action was part of the process of merging a separate football conference into the all-sports conference, it was Temple being expelled, and not simply a matter of the conference it was a member of being dissolved.

My favorite part of the Temple ejection thing is fellow commonwealth school, Pitt, abstaining from the vote. For what you hear from the Pitt faithful about how nasty Penn State was and what they did to them and the Big Ten, they neglect to recognize they did it in turn to Temple. Not that Penn State wasn't/isn't a bunch of turds (for any number of reasons), but that Pitt is really no different or better.

With what's going on with Rutgers (very possible they won't win a conference game this season), I think it shows that maybe the ACC was the better spot for them. That they could run with those they used to, the BC's, Cuse's, Pitt's, and then some of the bb-first schools, like Duke, Wake, and UNC...and keep up with a better chance of consistency. This being different than putting Rutgers out west with the bad Big Ten football members because at least having some history with some of the ACC schools, and having some similar recruiting territory with the others. No matter how you slice it, consistent revenue for athletic operations appear to be a challenge for this institution. I hope they can turn the corner, but, sometimes I wonder if for some, there never is an end to that corner.