(01-22-2023 09:07 AM)goofus Wrote:  I know I don't speak for all Big Ten fans, but I would have preferred the conference would have grabbed Missouri instead of Rutgers in 2012-2014, mainly as a bridge to help eventually grab Oklahoma and Texas in 2024.

The Rutgers add was an obvious play for the NYC market; I assume Syracuse pulling out of the AAU in 2011 took them out of Big Ten consideration.

And yes, I've always thought Missouri makes much more sense in the Big Ten than the SEC. And I do wonder if Texas and OU are rethinking the SEC move after seeing the Big Ten media rights deal.

(01-22-2023 10:21 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 09:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:59 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 10:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  So what exactly were you disagreeing with? It seems to me you simplified and reduced the importance of what I said, which is a true gripe amongst many Maryland fans, not just my close friend. You shrugged it off as if there aren't complex inner workings behind the scenes and schools will just schedule one another like nothing happened.

I think many Maryland fans like being in the B1G, in the sense of collecting more money and not being under what they perceived to be a Carolina-dominated ACC administrative structure.

But hoops-wise they'd rather be playing two games vs Duke, UNC, NC State, and Virginia each year than playing anyone in the B1G. Wake Forest too. Georgia Tech probably too.

Well, Wake Forest would seem to have little chance of a B10 or SEC invite, but those other 5, could very well, once the GoR situation is addressed...

Addressed in what way? As in expire in 13 years? They all signed it.

You actually think adding five schools to the Big Ten is going to increase the media payout for every current school? That would mean every individual school is worth more than USC or UCLA.

As I think I mentioned to someone else on this board. That's not how it works.

media dollars have very little to do with an individual school's seeming "value".

it's about eyeballs. and do certain matchups bring eyeballs.

So it's accumulative.

more schools, equals more matchups, equals more eyeballs, equals more ad dollars.

Now there can be an issue of questioning how many schools in a conference is too many due to being unwieldy for the bureaucracy to handle. And conference members may question whether having more members reduces the value of their in-conference vote, or could negatively impact their ability to recruit, or whatever.

And for perception reasons, P5 conferences seem to tend to prefer to add schools at the top half of fbs.

But for media deals? In general, the more the merrier.

Content is king.

I don’t think that’s how it works otherwise Warren would have gotten his wish of more Pac schools. The proof is in the pudding.

(01-22-2023 09:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:59 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 10:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 09:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I just call it like I see it, and I often find myself disagreeing with things you post. Rather than be rude and abrasive, I think that humor with a bit of sarcasm is more called for on this board.

You didn't mention the ACC standings in your earlier post, and I doubt that Duke had much of a negative impact on anybody's standing in the ACC (football). I know that I sure miss playing some of our old SWC and big 12 "rivals" for the easy W.

So what exactly were you disagreeing with? It seems to me you simplified and reduced the importance of what I said, which is a true gripe amongst many Maryland fans, not just my close friend. You shrugged it off as if there aren't complex inner workings behind the scenes and schools will just schedule one another like nothing happened.

I think many Maryland fans like being in the B1G, in the sense of collecting more money and not being under what they perceived to be a Carolina-dominated ACC administrative structure.

But hoops-wise they'd rather be playing two games vs Duke, UNC, NC State, and Virginia each year than playing anyone in the B1G. Wake Forest too. Georgia Tech probably too.

Well, Wake Forest would seem to have little chance of a B10 or SEC invite, but those other 5, could very well, once the GoR situation is addressed...

Addressed in what way? As in expire in 13 years? They all signed it.

You actually think adding five schools to the Big Ten is going to increase the media payout for every current school? That would mean every individual school is worth more than USC or UCLA.

Actually, it will probably be a package deal where the sum of all added is greater than their individual worths. WE won't be adding five. It will eventually be eight. I'm betting pieces won't start falling until about a year prior to the ACC GOR expiring. AS the flagships of the last two Southern/biggest states not in the P2, UNC/UVa will find themselves in a bidding war between the SEC and BIG.

(01-22-2023 10:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 10:21 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 09:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:59 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  I think many Maryland fans like being in the B1G, in the sense of collecting more money and not being under what they perceived to be a Carolina-dominated ACC administrative structure.

But hoops-wise they'd rather be playing two games vs Duke, UNC, NC State, and Virginia each year than playing anyone in the B1G. Wake Forest too. Georgia Tech probably too.

Well, Wake Forest would seem to have little chance of a B10 or SEC invite, but those other 5, could very well, once the GoR situation is addressed...

Addressed in what way? As in expire in 13 years? They all signed it.

You actually think adding five schools to the Big Ten is going to increase the media payout for every current school? That would mean every individual school is worth more than USC or UCLA.

As I think I mentioned to someone else on this board. That's not how it works.

media dollars have very little to do with an individual school's seeming "value".

it's about eyeballs. and do certain matchups bring eyeballs.

So it's accumulative.

more schools, equals more matchups, equals more eyeballs, equals more ad dollars.

Now there can be an issue of questioning how many schools in a conference is too many due to being unwieldy for the bureaucracy to handle. And conference members may question whether having more members reduces the value of their in-conference vote, or could negatively impact their ability to recruit, or whatever.

And for perception reasons, P5 conferences seem to tend to prefer to add schools at the top half of fbs.

But for media deals? In general, the more the merrier.

Content is king.

I don’t think that’s how it works otherwise Warren would have gotten his wish of more Pac schools. The proof is in the pudding.

lol - read all of my post, not just part of it.

"Now there can be an issue of questioning how many schools in a conference is too many due to being unwieldy for the bureaucracy to handle. And conference members may question whether having more members reduces the value of their in-conference vote, or could negatively impact their ability to recruit, or whatever."

Warren's issue wasn't the media deal - he pretty much shocked the world with that.

What was slowing down expansion for him, was internal B10 politics.

To add a school to the conference requires votes from the other schools.

And if you don't have the votes, you don't offer the invite.

It's just that simple.

(01-22-2023 10:52 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 09:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:59 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:54 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 10:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  So what exactly were you disagreeing with? It seems to me you simplified and reduced the importance of what I said, which is a true gripe amongst many Maryland fans, not just my close friend. You shrugged it off as if there aren't complex inner workings behind the scenes and schools will just schedule one another like nothing happened.

I think many Maryland fans like being in the B1G, in the sense of collecting more money and not being under what they perceived to be a Carolina-dominated ACC administrative structure.

But hoops-wise they'd rather be playing two games vs Duke, UNC, NC State, and Virginia each year than playing anyone in the B1G. Wake Forest too. Georgia Tech probably too.

Well, Wake Forest would seem to have little chance of a B10 or SEC invite, but those other 5, could very well, once the GoR situation is addressed...

Addressed in what way? As in expire in 13 years? They all signed it.

You actually think adding five schools to the Big Ten is going to increase the media payout for every current school? That would mean every individual school is worth more than USC or UCLA.

Actually, it will probably be a package deal where the sum of all added is greater than their individual worths. WE won't be adding five. It will eventually be eight. I'm betting pieces won't start falling until about a year prior to the ACC GOR expiring. AS the flagships of the last two Southern/biggest states not in the P2, UNC/UVa will find themselves in a bidding war between the SEC and BIG.

Setting aside the questions about WA and OR for a moment, because I think answers concerning them will very much change based upon the circumstances of the moment.

But in general, for the B10, I think VA and Duke are clearly on their radar, and - as those two schools are further down on the SEC priority list - they could probably happen at some point.

Compare to NC and FSU, which both the B10 and the SEC have higher in priority; GT, which both wouldn't mind; or Clemson and VT, which SEC would also probably like to add. I think the SEC negotiating with espn and the ACC to get the votes for GT, FSU, VT, and Clemson right now, would be a very smart move. And they can worry about the internal politics of trying to get NC and friends later.

And on the western side of the B10, Kansas, and Stanford, and maybe Colorado, if it turns out that travel issues are a bigger deal than initially realized.

(01-21-2023 10:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 09:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 02:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 02:13 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 11:45 AM)esayem Wrote:  One of my best friends is a Maryland fan, good luck telling him it makes sense. I think people don't realize how much UMd fans hate Duke and miss that rivalry. Fans don't get that game (nor UVa) anymore and they don't get the Big Ten media money.

If only it were possible to schedule a hated rival OOC every year. Oh, wait, UF-FSU, USC-Clemson, UGA-GT...it IS possible! Cool!

We weren't there with Texas, but in another 5-10 years we would have started playing them annually I suspect. Our hate for LSU and bama is strong, but the hatred for Texas runs deep.

I get you’re trying to be contrarian and that’s cute and all. That’s sort of been your MO towards me since you joined. But those games meant a lot to the ACC standings and the ACC tournament. AFAIK, that can’t be scheduled OOC. Unless you in your almighty wisdom know better?

I just call it like I see it, and I often find myself disagreeing with things you post. Rather than be rude and abrasive, I think that humor with a bit of sarcasm is more called for on this board.

You didn't mention the ACC standings in your earlier post, and I doubt that Duke had much of a negative impact on anybody's standing in the ACC (football). I know that I sure miss playing some of our old SWC and big 12 "rivals" for the easy W.

So what exactly were you disagreeing with? It seems to me you simplified and reduced the importance of what I said, which is a true gripe amongst many Maryland fans, not just my close friend. You shrugged it off as if there aren't complex inner workings behind the scenes and schools will just schedule one another like nothing happened.

All I was saying was that it's not an insurmountable obstacle for Maryland to schedule Duke every year in football if both schools desire it.

I just looked up "Maryland Rivals" and came up with West Virginia, Pitt, Virginia and Navy. No mention of Duke.

(01-21-2023 10:23 PM)RUScarlets Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 09:08 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  How many more people does it take to handle an extra 50-75 or so trips per year across all sports? Maybe give the current Logistics honcho an extra student intern, possibly even a paid position. So, at worst, 1 more person and $60k more per year. The potential extra cost on the logistical side is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of all those extra trips.

I am obviously not privy to answer anything on these matters, but I also won't oversimplify things down to some algorithm or event planner position that will figure it all out. But just some hypotheticals...

Are there added security challenges for female sports? If co-ed travel is involved or long two night trips in shady places like Indy, that's problematic for them California Dreamin' female athletes.

What is the actual policy for the existing road trips that take place currently in the PAC or other conferences? Are the athletes locked down in a hotel aside from bus trips to and from the airport? Do they attend virtual classes Friday morning? How is it currently done for USCLA hitting up the Washington schools? What's the complete itinerary? Because now we're going to be doing that 3-4 times a semester for most team sports and that adds risk.

But I don't have all those details. If you are going to keep men's and women's travel separate and adhere to a strict, low key, professional, almost droid-like disposition, where the kids are going in to play a ball game, grabbing a laptop in between to catch up on classwork, making it back to the hotel for a sound night of sleep, only to do it again the next morning, good luck to that. For me, that's asking too much for 19-21 year olds, the vast majority of whom aren't capitalizing on massive NIL money.

These are College Students, not 3rd graders. They don't have chaperones, they have Coaches. And traveling separately from the boys? They'll economize any and every way that they can, if that means running the risk of fraternization with the opposite sex then I think they'll take that chance.

(01-21-2023 11:16 PM)SoCalBobcat78 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 04:22 PM)bullet Wrote:  You claim they would give up home field advantage and byes. Well, the Pac has only made the top 4 twice. And never USC. So that comment wasn't based on reality.
Lots of schools are "back." Only time tells. But USC didn't win the Pac this year and didn't win their bowl.

Going to the Big 10 is probably a big help to their recruiting being in premier TV slots and in a conference that isn't an afterthought. So their chances of being "back" are better in the Big 10. It will probably be a plus for both USC and UCLA competitively in football. It also gives them something else to differentiate themselves from the other western schools.

That is the big unanswered question right now. Did the move to the Big Ten result in a recruiting advantage for USC and UCLA? To this point, not much has changed. USC and Oregon are on fire, as usual. The Pac-12 has six schools in the 247sports overall top 30 football recruiting rankings (USC, Oregon, Colorado, UCLA, Utah, Washington). The Pac-12 has not been affected and USC and UCLA are both doing well. UCLA did land the No. 1 ranked recruit in Michigan and picked up a couple of transfers from the MAC. But other than that, nothing much has changed.

And I would say that Chip Kelly's doing a pretty good job at UCLA, he's a name coach with a long track record of success. They'd be thriving on the recruiting trail whether in the Pac, B1G, whatever.

(01-22-2023 01:52 AM)jimrtex Wrote:  When the UCLA move was presented to the UC Board of Regents, they calculated the additional cost of travel, taking in to account the differences in scheduling for each sport.

They also made estimates of cost for additional nutritional, academic, and mental health support.

In the final agreement, the $$$ amounts of added nutritional, academic, and mental health were included. The additional travel costs were not presented as a $$$ amount, but rather a qualitative commitment to not miss any more class time than they are currently missing.

Yeah, that estimate came in at $9.1m. However, they also knew that Berkeley was angling for a big slice of that B1G money, so they had a strong incentive to come in with a very high estimate. They should have hired Harvey Perlman to do that presentation, he could have just flipped the BoR the bird and said "kick me out, I don't care".

(01-22-2023 02:00 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 06:11 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 06:07 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 06:02 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 11:45 AM)esayem Wrote:  One of my best friends is a Maryland fan, good luck telling him it makes sense. I think people don't realize how much UMd fans hate Duke and miss that rivalry. Fans don't get that game (nor UVa) anymore and they don't get the Big Ten media money.

Nobody liked the BIG expansion with PSU when it happened, not BIG fans and not PSU fans. Yet it has worked out well. The same was true with the Nebraska expansion and the RU UMd expansions. I'd say the one exception was RU fans were ecstatic to be rescued from the AAC. It was like being on a sinking fishing vessel, being picked up by the Queen Mary 2 and allowed to stay for the rest of the trip. USCLA will have the same growing pains in the BIG. Twenty years from now, when a whole generation of fans know nothing but all these schools being in the BIG, with whoever else it takes, it will feel as normal as Dallas in the NFC East.

I could make a strong case that joining the B1G was a bad move for PSU over the past 30 years. Call it bad luck or whatever. If I was a Nittany Lion, I'd darn well wonder if things would have turned out better if they'd remained Indy, joined the ACC, etc...then been ready to jump to the B1G or SEC right about now if needed. They were sitting pretty in the late 80's/early 90's.

I also wonder if the Big Ten wouldn't like to rescind that Rutgers invite back in retrospect.

The Purdue and Indiana basketball teams sure wish we were never added. What kind of value has SMU brought to the AAC media rights deals?

SMU brings plenty to the AAC, they're the biggest spender in the league and one of the most high profile teams left. Just because he's wrong about Rutgers doesn't mean that SMU isn't also a quality school.

(01-22-2023 09:07 AM)goofus Wrote:  I know I don't speak for all Big Ten fans, but I would have preferred the conference would have grabbed Missouri instead of Rutgers in 2012-2014, mainly as a bridge to help eventually grab Oklahoma and Texas in 2024.

A big reason that OUT chose the SEC, probably the biggest, was that the B1G just isn't very competitive on the field. 2.5 Titles in 50 years, 2 of those from one school. OUT are already top 10 revenue programs in the big 12, that isn't going to change, they went to the SEC instead of Pac or B1G b/c they want to win Championships. Maybe they win some, maybe not, but their odds are certainly better in the SEC. If the B1G had added Missouri a decade ago that would have had zero impact on OUT's decision.

(01-22-2023 09:24 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 09:07 AM)goofus Wrote:  I know I don't speak for all Big Ten fans, but I would have preferred the conference would have grabbed Missouri instead of Rutgers in 2012-2014, mainly as a bridge to help eventually grab Oklahoma and Texas in 2024.

Much as I would think it would be cool to get to Chicago and then take the sleeper train to St. Louis and rent a car to see the Buckeyes play hoops at Mizzou, then go back and catch the next day's train to Austin, to see them play a couple of days later, ...

... I think it's been enough decades where trips of that length are done by air that a land bridge for trips above easy driving distance is not really a thing.

The big advantage of UC for WVU in the Big12 is not that they get you closer to the core Big12 footprint, but more simply that they are a lot closer to Morgantown. Unless two schools are close enough for a bus leg in a three cornered travel partner trip, it's more important that the two schools have relatively easy access via a short direct air connection.

It's not a horrible drive from Norman to Columbia, but from Austin? No way am I ever driving that again. Not least b/c of the horrible construction between Prosper and the Ok border, I sear that RV had 6 inches on either side with concrete wall dividers for 50 miles. It felt like I was in Blade Runner.

(01-22-2023 12:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 10:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 10:21 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 09:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 08:59 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  Well, Wake Forest would seem to have little chance of a B10 or SEC invite, but those other 5, could very well, once the GoR situation is addressed...

Addressed in what way? As in expire in 13 years? They all signed it.

You actually think adding five schools to the Big Ten is going to increase the media payout for every current school? That would mean every individual school is worth more than USC or UCLA.

As I think I mentioned to someone else on this board. That's not how it works.

media dollars have very little to do with an individual school's seeming "value".

it's about eyeballs. and do certain matchups bring eyeballs.

So it's accumulative.

more schools, equals more matchups, equals more eyeballs, equals more ad dollars.

Now there can be an issue of questioning how many schools in a conference is too many due to being unwieldy for the bureaucracy to handle. And conference members may question whether having more members reduces the value of their in-conference vote, or could negatively impact their ability to recruit, or whatever.

And for perception reasons, P5 conferences seem to tend to prefer to add schools at the top half of fbs.

But for media deals? In general, the more the merrier.

Content is king.

I don’t think that’s how it works otherwise Warren would have gotten his wish of more Pac schools. The proof is in the pudding.

lol - read all of my post, not just part of it.

"Now there can be an issue of questioning how many schools in a conference is too many due to being unwieldy for the bureaucracy to handle. And conference members may question whether having more members reduces the value of their in-conference vote, or could negatively impact their ability to recruit, or whatever."

Warren's issue wasn't the media deal - he pretty much shocked the world with that.

What was slowing down expansion for him, was internal B10 politics.

To add a school to the conference requires votes from the other schools.

And if you don't have the votes, you don't offer the invite.

It's just that simple.

I did read your post and it's just hypothetical conjecture. Just like everyone else that posts their predictions.

They don't have the numbers to increase membership with valuable programs in new markets out west where they are establishing a footprint, but you want me to believe they're going to bring in five schools from the ACC? This is the "masterplan"?

(01-22-2023 01:17 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 10:10 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 09:00 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 02:34 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 02:13 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  If only it were possible to schedule a hated rival OOC every year. Oh, wait, UF-FSU, USC-Clemson, UGA-GT...it IS possible! Cool!

We weren't there with Texas, but in another 5-10 years we would have started playing them annually I suspect. Our hate for LSU and bama is strong, but the hatred for Texas runs deep.

I get you’re trying to be contrarian and that’s cute and all. That’s sort of been your MO towards me since you joined. But those games meant a lot to the ACC standings and the ACC tournament. AFAIK, that can’t be scheduled OOC. Unless you in your almighty wisdom know better?

I just call it like I see it, and I often find myself disagreeing with things you post. Rather than be rude and abrasive, I think that humor with a bit of sarcasm is more called for on this board.

You didn't mention the ACC standings in your earlier post, and I doubt that Duke had much of a negative impact on anybody's standing in the ACC (football). I know that I sure miss playing some of our old SWC and big 12 "rivals" for the easy W.

So what exactly were you disagreeing with? It seems to me you simplified and reduced the importance of what I said, which is a true gripe amongst many Maryland fans, not just my close friend. You shrugged it off as if there aren't complex inner workings behind the scenes and schools will just schedule one another like nothing happened.

All I was saying was that it's not an insurmountable obstacle for Maryland to schedule Duke every year in football if both schools desire it.

I just looked up "Maryland Rivals" and came up with West Virginia, Pitt, Virginia and Navy. No mention of Duke.

I understand you don't follow the ACC, which is fine. If you did, you would understand the deep-seated hate in the Maryland-Duke hoops rivalry I was referencing. The football rivalry hasn't been relevant since the two were top 10 programs in the 50's.

Maryland has a historical game vs Penn State and WVU, I don't know about Pitt. Their Navy game was put on ice because Navy found them to have a dirty program, which was pretty well publicized back in the day. When they were in the league, I'd say their biggest ACC football games were Virginia, NC State, and Clemson.

Like Quo said, most Maryland fans miss the basketball side of things and could care less about their football schedule.

(01-22-2023 03:41 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 12:29 PM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 10:44 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 10:21 AM)Skyhawk Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 09:19 AM)esayem Wrote:  Addressed in what way? As in expire in 13 years? They all signed it.

You actually think adding five schools to the Big Ten is going to increase the media payout for every current school? That would mean every individual school is worth more than USC or UCLA.

As I think I mentioned to someone else on this board. That's not how it works.

media dollars have very little to do with an individual school's seeming "value".

it's about eyeballs. and do certain matchups bring eyeballs.

So it's accumulative.

more schools, equals more matchups, equals more eyeballs, equals more ad dollars.

Now there can be an issue of questioning how many schools in a conference is too many due to being unwieldy for the bureaucracy to handle. And conference members may question whether having more members reduces the value of their in-conference vote, or could negatively impact their ability to recruit, or whatever.

And for perception reasons, P5 conferences seem to tend to prefer to add schools at the top half of fbs.

But for media deals? In general, the more the merrier.

Content is king.

I don’t think that’s how it works otherwise Warren would have gotten his wish of more Pac schools. The proof is in the pudding.

lol - read all of my post, not just part of it.

"Now there can be an issue of questioning how many schools in a conference is too many due to being unwieldy for the bureaucracy to handle. And conference members may question whether having more members reduces the value of their in-conference vote, or could negatively impact their ability to recruit, or whatever."

Warren's issue wasn't the media deal - he pretty much shocked the world with that.

What was slowing down expansion for him, was internal B10 politics.

To add a school to the conference requires votes from the other schools.

And if you don't have the votes, you don't offer the invite.

It's just that simple.

I did read your post and it's just hypothetical conjecture. Just like everyone else that posts their predictions.

They don't have the numbers to increase membership with valuable programs in new markets out west where they are establishing a footprint, but you want me to believe they're going to bring in five schools from the ACC? This is the "masterplan"?

lol no. never said this was a "master plan". Just said it's possible.

(01-22-2023 10:31 AM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 09:07 AM)goofus Wrote:  I know I don't speak for all Big Ten fans, but I would have preferred the conference would have grabbed Missouri instead of Rutgers in 2012-2014, mainly as a bridge to help eventually grab Oklahoma and Texas in 2024.

The Rutgers add was an obvious play for the NYC market; I assume Syracuse pulling out of the AAU in 2011 took them out of Big Ten consideration.

And yes, I've always thought Missouri makes much more sense in the Big Ten than the SEC. And I do wonder if Texas and OU are rethinking the SEC move after seeing the Big Ten media rights deal.

Rutgers was a great add for the Big Ten for what they were going for. They also have the potential to be a consistent top-25 basketball program.

(01-22-2023 01:32 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(01-22-2023 02:00 AM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 06:11 PM)World Wide Swag Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 06:07 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(01-21-2023 06:02 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  Nobody liked the BIG expansion with PSU when it happened, not BIG fans and not PSU fans. Yet it has worked out well. The same was true with the Nebraska expansion and the RU UMd expansions. I'd say the one exception was RU fans were ecstatic to be rescued from the AAC. It was like being on a sinking fishing vessel, being picked up by the Queen Mary 2 and allowed to stay for the rest of the trip. USCLA will have the same growing pains in the BIG. Twenty years from now, when a whole generation of fans know nothing but all these schools being in the BIG, with whoever else it takes, it will feel as normal as Dallas in the NFC East.

I could make a strong case that joining the B1G was a bad move for PSU over the past 30 years. Call it bad luck or whatever. If I was a Nittany Lion, I'd darn well wonder if things would have turned out better if they'd remained Indy, joined the ACC, etc...then been ready to jump to the B1G or SEC right about now if needed. They were sitting pretty in the late 80's/early 90's.

I also wonder if the Big Ten wouldn't like to rescind that Rutgers invite back in retrospect.

The Purdue and Indiana basketball teams sure wish we were never added. What kind of value has SMU brought to the AAC media rights deals?

SMU brings plenty to the AAC, they're the biggest spender in the league and one of the most high profile teams left. Just because he's wrong about Rutgers doesn't mean that SMU isn't also a quality school.

That's my point. Ever since the SWC dissolved, SMU has repeatedly been left behind. I'm no TV or conference guy, but I'm sure I see what they see. Which is SMU brings no market. It doesn't even deliver Dallas never mind Texas, for either the either the AAC or B12.
You could make a case that as a member of the PAC, it could bring tv cable subscriptions for the PAC12N. But then the same exact folks who think USCLA to the BIG causes too much travel, would have to completely ignore the crazy travel from Dallas to ALL the CA, OR, WA schools. Of course those are the same folks who think having the B12 stretch from Orlando and Morgantown to Provo is a fantastic idea.

What if the pink clouds in the sunset sky are actually cotton candy?

(01-22-2023 04:45 PM)goodknightfl Wrote:  What if the pink clouds in the sunset sky are actually cotton candy?

Then there'd be a lake of stew and of whiskey, too, cause that'd be right next to the Big Rock Candy Mountains.