(06-06-2019 06:26 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Nebraska pulled a bunch of talent out of New Jersey back when they were winning. California was another big state for them. One of their biggest down turn was Missouri turning into a competitive program. Until Pinkel came along, Nebraska used to get the top players from Missouri. That was one of the reasons Nebraska fell as a program, lost their recruiting ground in the biggest population state closest to them.

Yeah I didn't realize NJ was popular with them in the past. I actually noticed in the current class there are some NJ recruits.

If you want to know where Nebraska recruited from:
Top Ten States
Nebraska
California
Texas
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Colorado
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Minnesota

https://dataomaha.com/huskers/state

(06-06-2019 07:54 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  If you want to know where Nebraska recruited from:
Top Ten States
Nebraska
California
Texas
Illinois
Iowa
Kansas
Colorado
Missouri
Pennsylvania
Minnesota

https://dataomaha.com/huskers/state

Awesome link, thanks!

43 Texas recruits in 15 years with the Big12.

25 Texas recruits in what will be 9 years, including 2019, in the Big 10.

Texas recruits per year when participating in Big 12= 2.87

Texas recruits per year when participating in Big 10= 2.78

Hope I figured this up right?

Just find the numbers interesting and I honestly had no idea the averages where even this high?

(06-04-2019 01:25 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 01:08 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 11:28 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 10:06 AM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 05:55 PM)JRsec Wrote:  What I get overly reactive to is a lie, the manipulation of events that the board may not remember, and the atrociously overly optimistic spin of all things ACC dating back to my entire time on this board. There's a reason it was tagged the Rainbows and Unicorns crowd. Things are what they are. Tweaking the storyline with a word like "afford" is as dis-ingenious as it gets when it was not part of the discussions back in 2010-1. The only thing CBS stated was that they were getting nothing new out of the additions and didn't see why they should pay more. In the world of quid pro quo business dealings this is a perfectly rational position. What they gave up, was more than we could have expected. They gave up their exclusivity to the 2:30 CTZ slot for the Game of the Week to permit the SECN to air a T3 game. That was a gesture of good will.

No major business ever uses the words "can't afford". It is the kiss of death on stock sales. Even if they can't afford it they never state it.

Now what CBS may or may not do this time around or how flush or not they may be, they nevertheless are in the industry and they are quite aware of the costs of programming. If they want to remain the top Saturday time slot for Fall Sports then the inflation of programming that has occurred in the past 11 to 12 years will have to be factored in and a bonus for the product that produces the top time slot is also an industry standard.

If CBS doesn't want it FOX has been chomping at the bit to gain a Southeastern audience and ABC is waiting in the wings. So the SEC wouldn't be worrying about losing the time slot, or the exclusivity of a national platform.

That's why I called it schadenfreude and that was giving the benefit of the doubt over intentional prevarication.

Instead of trashing ACC fans you should look at what they have endured on this board since you have been here. I believe you were here long enough to remember when all the Naysayers were promoting the demise of the ACC, when Maryland left. ACC fans were "overly optimistic" that the league would stay together. The ACC stayed together.

Then when other conferences signed GOR's the board was talking about the ACC not being able to sign a GOR because everyone was looking to leave. Then suddenly it was announced that the ACC schools signed a long term GOR.

Then, when it was announced that ESPN was exploring starting up an ACCN, we heard for 3 years that ESPN would never do a network for the ACC because it wouldnt make any money. Then we heard it was taking so long because ESPN is stringing the ACC along. All the while most normal ACC fans were "overly optimistic" when they were saying that it was coming and that it was taking so long because of buying back tv inventory that was already sold. ACC fans were accused then of spinning the so-called facts..

Now its June 4th and the network is set to debut next month and now all the naysayers are saying that it cant possibly be as profitable as the SECN or BIGN, and that its going to fail. Well excuse us if we dont buy that narrative. ALL of the naysayers have been dead wrong before, so I dont understand why folks think that their theories are infallible. Or why folks get so upset when others dont except their theories when they have been so wrong before.

We'll see. But you have been no more embattled in that regard than the Old Big East was, or the Big 12, and now the PAC shares that skepticism. It is what it is. And in spite of it all nothing has changed with the status quo except this year the ACC managed to payout the same amount as the PAC, 29.5 million per school which did change 1 statistic, you were no longer solely in 5th place on media revenue.

So I'd say there have been 7 years worth of squawking about your possible demise, and that of the Big 12's, and 7 years worth of wonderful pie in the sky claims by the ACC posters predicting significant gains and constant claims of stability by Big 12 posters, and constant claims of SEC and Big 10 posters to the contrary and absolutely nothing has changed substantively.

During that time frame the SEC caught and passed the Big 10 in media revenue and the Big 10 has caught an passed the SEC in media revenue. Everyone else has stayed the same until the ACC caught but did not pass the PAC this past year.

Why has this been the case? Because 7 years is nothing in the lifespan of a conference or business. The contracts that locked it all in place have not changed with the exception of the major leap forward FOX gave the Big 10.

Well we are now entering a major contract period where the Big 12, PAC, Big 10, and SEC will all have major new contracts forthcoming. There is one conference that is absent from that lineup because all 3 tiers of revenue are tied up with one network until 2037 and that's problematic for the ACC. Does it mean catastrophe? No. I think many of us, self included, have acknowledged for some time now that you are stable. But the other of the P4 will all be getting new main contracts for T1 programming and historically T3 product simply doesn't have the yield, even when in a conference network. And the dynamics of T3 conference networks aren't going to magically work any differently for the ACC than they do for the PAC, B1G, or SEC. It will still be a matter of subscriptions x advertising rates which determine your revenue.

To say you'll make within 4 or 5 years what the Big 10 and SEC makes is not being a naysayer. But to say that you are going to double those is without question pie in sky thinking.

As to whether there are substantive changes in the P5 by 2025 remains to be seen. There could be massive change, or no change. It depends on the long term projections for Texas and Oklahoma relative to the top line schools in the Big 10 and SEC and whether the increases they could make in either are worth it to them. But if either or both move to either or both of the top two conferences the revenue gap will jump and the pieces of the realignment puzzle that could alter the standings in that new world simply aren't there. Notre Dame going all in would help the ACC. But if Texas and Oklahoma move there will be no catch up moves to be had.

From there the formation of leagues becomes a realistic possibility.

Now the argument against that is that the acquired leverage would not be in the networks interests so they might discourage that movement, or might simply do another special deal with Texas and Oklahoma to cement status quo. But cementing status quo means little likelihood for any conference to change their relative position to others.

But on the flip side of that argument it has been pointed out that simply moving Texas and Oklahoma to either of the Big 10 or SEC multiplies their content value enough to make those moves profitable for networks, especially if the remaining 8 schools wind up in a conference getting paid less than the Big 12.

So by 2025 we might very well be looking at a whole new landscape in college football and if so then from there we will be postulating new perspectives for what will happen next. Some of you will get to see what happens from there. Some of us likely won't. Because the new stressors will take 10 to 20 years to create more change.

It took 20 years for the SEC to move to 14 from 12. These changes happen at glacial speed with a sudden shock at the time of movement. So my point Cuseroc is that we are where we were at the end of 2012 and very little has changed in the pecking order of the P5. If the pressure that was added 7 years ago to the pressure that started building when the SWC disbanded leads to an Oklahoma and / or Texas move then the pressure on the PAC and the ACC will be ratcheted up and that pressure is really pressure on the SEC and Big 10 because if we wind up being the significant leaders in revenue then our conferences are going to change too whether we like it or not.

The problem with this board for the whole 7 years I've been here is that posters blame other conferences for the movement. That's absurd. None of these conferences would have changed had it not been for the changing dynamics within broadcasting and the revenue involved. But change is going to continue to come our way whether we like it or not and it is not being instigated by the Big 10 or SEC. We're just trying to hang onto our positions the same as you.

It is the corporations that are changing the landscape, and will continue to do so. They have the money and we take more of it to do what they want. We can't add a single school unless they pay for it.

The problem for the ACC is they sold out cheaply and completely and for a long duration to ESPN and now ESPN's landscape is being shaped by market and innovative forces. So it is not absurd on anyone's part to note that if the ACCN does pay out at Big 10 and SEC levels that between now and 2037 the SEC, Big 10, and maybe the key schools in the Big 12 will likely all make an additional 8 million or more due to contract renewals and if that happens then no ground will have been made up by the ACC prior to contract renewal in 2037. It is what it is.

I have profound reservations that by 2040 any of us would recognize the future landscape of college sports including whether conferences will even exist in any of the present configurations they are in.

And for the record I don't trash ACC fans, just ridiculous or false claims.

I agree with this, except I would say that what ACC fans endured was far worse after Maryland left. You had witers/bloggers making up stuff about ACC schools leaving and even sharing what we thought, at the time, were intimate details about negotiations behind the scenes. All this to make a name for themselves and trying to destabilize the ACC because their school was rejected by the ACC. Nothing on that level has happened to the B12 or Pac12.

I bet fans of Big 12 and Pac-12 teams who read this board might feel differently than you do. For example, I remember back when about half the threads on this board consisted of fans of non-power teams gleefully predicting that the Big 12 would fall apart and most of its members would have to beg for invitations to the MWC or CUSA.

And after the Pac 16 deal fell apart and the OU+2 to Pac 12 fell apart, nothing was going on with the Big 12. On the contrary, the FSU and Clemson boards had meetings discussing moving to the Big 12. Clemson had two. The degree to which it was advanced was exaggerated, but there were clearly some discussions in back channels even if they weren't by decision makers.

(06-06-2019 11:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  I believe Syracuse is a more prestigious university than Maryland, but UMd has the location advantage when you are considering modern day athletics and their relationship to markets.

Syracuse has been on the Big Ten’s radar since the early 90’s (when the mere thought of inviting Maryland would have brought roaring laughter from the Big Ten officials), but I think Paterno wielded some heavy opposition against the Orangemen due to the proposed Eastern Conference fiasco.

Syracuse dropped out of the AAU before being kicked out like Nebraska. Maryland is a powerhouse research university. From the viewpoint of college presidents, who value research, Maryland is much more prestigious.

(06-06-2019 05:30 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 11:56 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 12:23 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  PAC would have been very interested in Nebraska. Nebraska is a top 10 brand in college football. It was a slam dunk done deal for the Big Ten. That is why no chatter for the PAC expansion on them.

They WERE a top 10 brand...

Nebraska has been irrelevant in college football for quite awhile now. I think Boise State fields a better program

Some Nebraska fans blame Texas since Bevo “forced” the Big XII to ban partial qualifiers. I don’t know how credible that claim is.

#1 The vote was 11-1.
#2 The SEC followed suit.
#3 The NCAA limited them significantly just a couple years later.

So, no, its not credible.

(06-06-2019 12:19 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 03:03 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah Nebraska was a strong addition but they should have been decisive and immediately gone after Pitt and Syracuse instead of Maryland and Rutgers

Don’t really think ND has been a realistic option in a longtime so they never should have really factored into the decision making process

Pitt and Syracuse still maintain regional identity and cohesion, even if stretching the boundaries to the max, that 2 schools near the Atlantic Ocean cannot.

If they needed Maryland for DC, they should’ve jumped on Syracuse sooner before getting stuck with Rutgers. Syracuse still has a large NYC presence and brings content value Rutgers does not (eg. Rutgers being the only team BTN didn’t air a football classic for this past week, Delany needing to publicly distinguish Maryland’s competitiveness from Rutgers, etc).

UMD is closer to NYC than Cuse. They don't have that much a NYC market besides their LIRR alumni. You people are funny

(06-06-2019 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 11:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  I believe Syracuse is a more prestigious university than Maryland, but UMd has the location advantage when you are considering modern day athletics and their relationship to markets.

Syracuse has been on the Big Ten’s radar since the early 90’s (when the mere thought of inviting Maryland would have brought roaring laughter from the Big Ten officials), but I think Paterno wielded some heavy opposition against the Orangemen due to the proposed Eastern Conference fiasco.

Syracuse dropped out of the AAU before being kicked out like Nebraska. Maryland is a powerhouse research university. From the viewpoint of college presidents, who value research, Maryland is much more prestigious.

That’s fine, and I’m well aware of all that info, but Syracuse is more prestigious overall.

The Big Ten practically begged Notre Dame to join multiple times, how’s their research?

(06-06-2019 09:01 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 12:19 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 03:03 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah Nebraska was a strong addition but they should have been decisive and immediately gone after Pitt and Syracuse instead of Maryland and Rutgers

Don’t really think ND has been a realistic option in a longtime so they never should have really factored into the decision making process

Pitt and Syracuse still maintain regional identity and cohesion, even if stretching the boundaries to the max, that 2 schools near the Atlantic Ocean cannot.

If they needed Maryland for DC, they should’ve jumped on Syracuse sooner before getting stuck with Rutgers. Syracuse still has a large NYC presence and brings content value Rutgers does not (eg. Rutgers being the only team BTN didn’t air a football classic for this past week, Delany needing to publicly distinguish Maryland’s competitiveness from Rutgers, etc).

UMD is closer to NYC than Cuse. They don't have that much a NYC market besides their LIRR alumni. You people are funny

There you go again, thinking that the only thing that matters for college football fandom is distance from a campus to a city. You probably think the Longhorns have no fans in Texas except within 50 miles of Austin.

(06-06-2019 09:13 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 11:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  I believe Syracuse is a more prestigious university than Maryland, but UMd has the location advantage when you are considering modern day athletics and their relationship to markets.

Syracuse has been on the Big Ten’s radar since the early 90’s (when the mere thought of inviting Maryland would have brought roaring laughter from the Big Ten officials), but I think Paterno wielded some heavy opposition against the Orangemen due to the proposed Eastern Conference fiasco.

Syracuse dropped out of the AAU before being kicked out like Nebraska. Maryland is a powerhouse research university. From the viewpoint of college presidents, who value research, Maryland is much more prestigious.

That’s fine, and I’m well aware of all that info, but Syracuse is more prestigious overall.

The Big Ten practically begged Notre Dame to join multiple times, how’s their research?

Notre Dame is a pretty good research school.

The Big Ten expansion "RFP" that produced Nebraska, I suspect, will be the stuff of a good book. A confluence about everything that's ugly about college athletics. From a curious candidate list leaking, to Nebraska's Perlman and Osborn antics with the Big XII, while probably never off the phone with Penn State's Graham Spanier and Commissioner Delany, to the school then taking a share payout, only the watch Maryland get a sweetheart deal. Oh, and don't forget Big Ten school leaders joining the mob to kick UNL out of the AAU.

I've always thought one of the Big Ten presidents or conference office administrators leaked the list intentionally because they were not thrilled with their candidate pool. And I've always believed that Nebraska had such tunnel-vision about what it was doing that it never probably did bother to contact the PAC offices or SEC to at least inquire what their value would be.

And poor Missouri. Poor Rutgers, too, until they got a second chance.

I know the big figures look impressive. Who would honestly know what a different school or two would have done for the bottom line. Nobody does.

(06-06-2019 09:01 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 12:19 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(06-01-2019 03:03 PM)Gamecock Wrote:  Yeah Nebraska was a strong addition but they should have been decisive and immediately gone after Pitt and Syracuse instead of Maryland and Rutgers

Don’t really think ND has been a realistic option in a longtime so they never should have really factored into the decision making process

Pitt and Syracuse still maintain regional identity and cohesion, even if stretching the boundaries to the max, that 2 schools near the Atlantic Ocean cannot.

If they needed Maryland for DC, they should’ve jumped on Syracuse sooner before getting stuck with Rutgers. Syracuse still has a large NYC presence and brings content value Rutgers does not (eg. Rutgers being the only team BTN didn’t air a football classic for this past week, Delany needing to publicly distinguish Maryland’s competitiveness from Rutgers, etc).

UMD is closer to NYC than Cuse. They don't have that much a NYC market besides their LIRR alumni. You people are funny

Hasn't Rutgers been relegated to 1-AA? I swore I read that somewhere.

No one cares about Rutgers in NYC. You had your one night miracle moment back when current recruits were preschoolers. Rutgers is irrelevant in 2019. Your season ticket base has eroded down to less than 15K...you are probably one of the few who still drives on the turnpike with your Block R magnet.

(06-06-2019 09:13 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 11:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  I believe Syracuse is a more prestigious university than Maryland, but UMd has the location advantage when you are considering modern day athletics and their relationship to markets.

Syracuse has been on the Big Ten’s radar since the early 90’s (when the mere thought of inviting Maryland would have brought roaring laughter from the Big Ten officials), but I think Paterno wielded some heavy opposition against the Orangemen due to the proposed Eastern Conference fiasco.

Syracuse dropped out of the AAU before being kicked out like Nebraska. Maryland is a powerhouse research university. From the viewpoint of college presidents, who value research, Maryland is much more prestigious.

That’s fine, and I’m well aware of all that info, but Syracuse is more prestigious overall.

The Big Ten practically begged Notre Dame to join multiple times, how’s their research?

Syracuse is much bigger than people think. Intertwined with the university are a state medical college (Upstate) and SUNY ESF which were both part of SU at one time and currently have academic agreements. The edge of the SUNY ESF campus is actually about 75 feet from the Carrier Dome. ESF students take SU classes and attend SU sporting events.

(06-06-2019 09:40 PM)cubucks Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 09:13 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 08:53 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-06-2019 11:27 AM)esayem Wrote:  I believe Syracuse is a more prestigious university than Maryland, but UMd has the location advantage when you are considering modern day athletics and their relationship to markets.

Syracuse has been on the Big Ten’s radar since the early 90’s (when the mere thought of inviting Maryland would have brought roaring laughter from the Big Ten officials), but I think Paterno wielded some heavy opposition against the Orangemen due to the proposed Eastern Conference fiasco.

Syracuse dropped out of the AAU before being kicked out like Nebraska. Maryland is a powerhouse research university. From the viewpoint of college presidents, who value research, Maryland is much more prestigious.

That’s fine, and I’m well aware of all that info, but Syracuse is more prestigious overall.

The Big Ten practically begged Notre Dame to join multiple times, how’s their research?

Notre Dame is a pretty good research school.

Perhaps it is more research focused now, I’m not sure. Traditionally, Notre Dame has been regarded as a tremendous place to earn a bachelor’s degree.

I was reluctant to share this link because I’m afraid if it starts getting too many hits, it will be deleted. Then I’ll have to find something else to laugh and about whenever Big 12 fans here start talking expansion and Death to The ACC.

From November 20, 2012:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eersauthori...io-podcast

Let’s Review the Predictions of Conference Expansion “Pioneer”.....

1. Big Ten talking to UVa and Georgia Tech....
2. ACC in panic mode. ACC will add UCONN...
3. FSU and Clemson trying to get out of ACC.
4. ACC has already chosen UCONN...............
5. Oklahoma and Texas don’t want a Conference Championship Game
6. ACC considering adding Georgetown and St. Johns.....
7. ACC contacted WVU about joining....
8. WVU planning to join Big Ten when their GOR expires
9. Big 12 talking to Fox & ESPN about what teams to select for expansion.
10. SEC will add Virginia Tech, NCState, Clemson and FSU
11. Louisville - Big 12
12. UCONN - ACC
13. FSU - SEC
14. Clemson- SEC
15. Cincinnati- ACC
16. SEC on Virginia Tech’s campus talking expansion.
17. ACC is on the brink.

Above are predictions that were made. How many came true?

(06-06-2019 10:30 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I was reluctant to share this link because I’m afraid if it starts getting too many hits, it will be deleted. Then I’ll have to find something else to laugh and about whenever Big 12 fans here start talking expansion and Death to The ACC.

From November 20, 2012:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eersauthori...io-podcast

LOL, So much Fail in those interviews. The ACC contacted WV 3 times during realignment and Oliver Luck polity declined?

(06-06-2019 10:58 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  Above are predictions that were made. How many came true?

This was the same week UMD announced its departure. Oh, what fun times those were.

#9, but was that even a prediction? It's a contract. That chatter is SOP. And, every other conference expanded and made more money, so a conference that shrank was supposed to get similar distributions just because?

#3, because there was a big enough FSU stakeholder faction that was ready to move on. It took FSU's then-president to bring "Ninja Swofford" in to swoon the critics. It didn't hurt that Barron probably didn't even follow up very much with the SEC, because, Barron was so in love with the ACC that objectivity and actual metrics would have hurt his running hypothesis that the ACC was just better.

Of course, we knew FSU was an easy target because there were only two schools who nixed the increased exit fee. FSU was one, and UMD was the other. The real horse**** was Clemson. Heck, they voted for the increased exit fee AND apparently had no qualms with the GoR. Wrong school...because wasn't it someone in VA (or was it NCSU) who also needed some assurance along with FSU?

#6 might have happened, if the two were among the mostly unnamed Big East applications after the news that Pitt and Cuse were leaving. But that was 2010? And, I guess if you see this parcel from either school, and see the request, does that millisecond between reading the statement and then screaming "no" count as "considering?"

Geez, even back then they had it wrong with the schools. Villanova, iirc, hadn't yet finally closed the book on FBS. And they apparently DID apply to the ACC and really only wanted some kind of track to the ACC to justify moving to FBS.

On a tangent, I do wonder if there was more chatter between Villanova and the ACC during that run of years. Not that UConn wasn't the bigger and more credible candidate, but it wasn't like Villanova didn't have allies in the ACC who might have been supportive of a kind of roadmap for future membership. That's one where had there been more chatter, I bet you might have seen a split and some more ACC schools leaving. If someone wanted to really troll and see the ACC further shed, I bet such a fake story would have been damaging.

(06-06-2019 09:59 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  The Big Ten expansion "RFP" that produced Nebraska, I suspect, will be the stuff of a good book. A confluence about everything that's ugly about college athletics. From a curious candidate list leaking, to Nebraska's Perlman and Osborn antics with the Big XII, while probably never off the phone with Penn State's Graham Spanier and Commissioner Delany, to the school then taking a share payout, only the watch Maryland get a sweetheart deal. Oh, and don't forget Big Ten school leaders joining the mob to kick UNL out of the AAU.

I've always thought one of the Big Ten presidents or conference office administrators leaked the list intentionally because they were not thrilled with their candidate pool. And I've always believed that Nebraska had such tunnel-vision about what it was doing that it never probably did bother to contact the PAC offices or SEC to at least inquire what their value would be.

And poor Missouri. Poor Rutgers, too, until they got a second chance.

I know the big figures look impressive. Who would honestly know what a different school or two would have done for the bottom line. Nobody does.

Nebraska got the worst deal of anyone. In $ terms, Rutgers is worse, but they are getting vastly more than before. Nebraska had bargaining power and didn't use it. Colorado, Texas A&M and Missouri got virtually full membership in their new conferences.