(03-16-2013 04:55 PM)S11 Wrote:  ...or it could be a ten year sum to cover the 2-3mm annual increase in travel costs like they imply.

Surrrrrrrre. Or it could be they're throwing a really expensive birthday party for the Easter Bunny next week and flying Santa Claus in from the North Pole as a surprise guest.

(03-16-2013 04:55 PM)S11 Wrote:  ...or it could be a ten year sum to cover the 2-3mm annual increase in travel costs like they imply.

Excellent point! So, that being the case, every team added from here on to the B1G from the ACC should expect a "travel cost" premium? As well as fronted money against future earnings? How about a full share upon entry?
If I was Nebraska, I would sure feel all alone and shorted! Being a national brand and all!

If I was WVU in the Big 12, I would be pointing at Maryland and asking Bowlsby "What gives!"

(03-16-2013 05:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 04:55 PM)S11 Wrote:  ...or it could be a ten year sum to cover the 2-3mm annual increase in travel costs like they imply.

Excellent point! So, that being the case, every team added from here on to the B1G from the ACC should expect a "travel cost" premium? As well as fronted money against future earnings? How about a full share upon entry?
If I was Nebraska, I would sure feel all alone and shorted! Being a national brand and all!

If I was WVU in the Big 12, I would be pointing at Maryland and asking Bowlsby "What gives!"

Universities are not ran by children. The University of Nebraska President is not going to throw a fit, walk into Commissioner Delany's office and throw a temper tantrum about not getting the deal Maryland got.

I am sure all Presidents of the 12 current schools and two future schools are quite aware of why Maryland is receiving such treatment. There is a future college football that is much bigger and supports Universities much more efficiently and that is the bigger picture.

(03-16-2013 05:31 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 04:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What the hell are you talking about? I am talking simply about what the Big Ten giving 20-30 million to Maryland could mean. It does not definitively say that Maryland is ending up paying 50 million and you know that. It could mean that but it could just as well mean that the Big Ten agreed to pay all of Maryland's fee's and that could end up being somewhere between 20-30 million but the exact amount is yet to be fully negotiated.

All the rest of what you said really has nothing to do with this particular subject.

And yes you do have yourself a little love fest going on with XLance and your constant giving each other reputation so don't try to deny that you are pandering to their little mob. That doesn't make your idea's any more feasible. He supports anything that sounds good. He is nothing but a cheerleader. That is why I don't post here much anymore. It is nothing but cheerleader BS and most of the quality posters don't post here anymore.

You need to stop and check your claims. Everyone on this board has folks who agree with their posts and those who do not. There are no cheerleaders. XLance has had some rather profound disagreements with me in the past when I was more inclined to think that there would be three conferences of 20 or more because of the networks and financial rewards. You got a great deal of support from some of the West Virginia posters but nobody claimed that you were getting "a mob" together. That's just life and the way it works.

You think outside of the box and do a great job of laying out those scenarios. Some of them are plausible and some are not. Sometimes even the implausible ones illustrate points that need to be looked at and picked over. That's a great conversation starter for a chat room board. But just because others don't agree with you there is no reason to go off. The facts right now just don't support a big raid upon the ACC. The stuff that has happened in the last couple of days is shifting away from the likelihood of such and not towards it. You have made your views on the subject way more important to yourself than they should be. I would hate to see you leave the board, but sometimes each of us is just wrong, or we made a prediction that won't come true. If that happens and we have married ourselves to the position that is embarrassing, but it doesn't have to be. We are all entitled to our opinions, our likes, and our dislikes. Nobody I take seriously has insulted you, called you names, or assaulted you for your views. The fact that you go ballistic over nothing of great consequence means you are taking what for most of us is a welcome distraction from the world way too seriously. And that means you are taking yourself way too seriously. Lighten up, wind down, and stick around. I for one enjoy reading your ideas, even when I don't agree with them. You once told me to lay off the global stuff because this was an escape for you. You were right, and I have enjoyed it more. But if the Big 10 doesn't expand further and the ACC survives is that going to hurt anybody who posts here? Heck no, nor should it.

XLance is not your enemy and neither is anybody else here. If I'm wrong and Delany devours the ACC so what, I was wrong. My son-in-law was just diagnosed with metastatic cancer. That is important, this is just an escape.

And just for the record in my entire time on this board XLance has given me 2 reputation points and I have given him 6. Hardly a love fest or a mob.

I hold different posters to different standards. Some I respect as intelligent persons that can practice strong, complicated mental practices. Some of them can barely put together a single sentence post and asking for that single sentence to resemble something intelligent is just too much of a stretch for them.


Now, do I care whether the ACC lives or dies? I couldn't care less. In fact the very first scenario's I came out with involved the Big 12 being picked apart and not the ACC. In fact the picking apart of the Big 12 always better suited a 4x16 situation. Somehow the Big 12 survived their own apocalypse. Perhaps no one else will leave the ACC perhaps other school's will. It is not personal for me, what IS personal for me is people coming at me with intellectually devoid debate points and trying to talk down to me with such. It does not make me angry, it does annoy me to a great degree though. At least folks like Yinzer would put some effort in his way of insulting me. I would get nasty in return but I still had some measure of respect for the way in which he could produce an intelligent post.

All I am talking about in this thread is the fact that the Big Ten giving Maryland 20-30 million dollars only says that the Big Ten is giving Maryland 20-30 million dollars for travel expenses. I would agree that such likely comes due to the cost of exiting the ACC and the Big Ten making some kind of agreement to helping with that cost. They may be paying the whole fee, they may be only paying partial. Anyone saying this means one or the other only is either blatantly lying, fooling themselves, or quite frankly they are just an idiot that cannot look at the whole picture beyond their own biased desires.

You JR are no idiot, I know you are not a blatant liar ever and you are no fool. What you do have is either a known or an unknown bias against the Big Ten. Perhaps that comes from this perceived competition that you believe there to be between the B1G and SEC. It does appear to me that you want the Big Ten to get it stuck to them else you would be seeing this more clearly that what we do know about the subject does not tell us enough to know whether the 50 million is going to stick and whether the Big Ten is paying Maryland's entire cost or just a portion of it.

(03-16-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 04:55 PM)S11 Wrote:  ...or it could be a ten year sum to cover the 2-3mm annual increase in travel costs like they imply.

Excellent point! So, that being the case, every team added from here on to the B1G from the ACC should expect a "travel cost" premium? As well as fronted money against future earnings? How about a full share upon entry?
If I was Nebraska, I would sure feel all alone and shorted! Being a national brand and all!

If I was WVU in the Big 12, I would be pointing at Maryland and asking Bowlsby "What gives!"

Universities are not ran by children. The University of Nebraska President is not going to throw a fit, walk into Commissioner Delany's office and throw a temper tantrum about not getting the deal Maryland got.
I am sure all Presidents of the 12 current schools and two future schools are quite aware of why Maryland is receiving such treatment. There is a future college football that is much bigger and supports Universities much more efficiently and that is the bigger picture.

No they won't do that, I agree, but they will get something! Perhaps a neighbor.

And yes, I agree, Ohio State needs to be propped up by the B1G, I'm sure they feel that way as well.

Wonder who is bigger, Ohio State or the Big 10?

(03-16-2013 07:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 04:55 PM)S11 Wrote:  ...or it could be a ten year sum to cover the 2-3mm annual increase in travel costs like they imply.

Excellent point! So, that being the case, every team added from here on to the B1G from the ACC should expect a "travel cost" premium? As well as fronted money against future earnings? How about a full share upon entry?
If I was Nebraska, I would sure feel all alone and shorted! Being a national brand and all!

If I was WVU in the Big 12, I would be pointing at Maryland and asking Bowlsby "What gives!"

Universities are not ran by children. The University of Nebraska President is not going to throw a fit, walk into Commissioner Delany's office and throw a temper tantrum about not getting the deal Maryland got.
I am sure all Presidents of the 12 current schools and two future schools are quite aware of why Maryland is receiving such treatment. There is a future college football that is much bigger and supports Universities much more efficiently and that is the bigger picture.

No they won't do that, I agree, but they will get something! Perhaps a neighbor.

Well, I would agree with you that Nebraska would love to see Kansas get into the Big Ten. Perhaps they would like Missouri as well. Whether or not they get it....they are in no position to make a demand, they could only make a request.

A Virginia/Missouri combination pick up would definitely be an interesting one.

East
Penn State
Maryland
Virginia
Rutgers

Central
Ohio State
Michigan
Purdue
Illinois

North
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Indiana
Northwestern

West
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
Minnesota


How that would correspond into movement by the SEC and then the ACC, who knows. Whether or not Missouri leadership still has a crush on the Big Ten is a big question mark.


In regards to your edit about Ohio State, I really don't understand that point at all.o

(03-16-2013 08:52 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:48 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:32 AM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  Travel subsidy?
more like exit fee subsidy imo
doesn't help MD punitive arguement either

I agree with this. That's a lot of money to get upfront for Maryland. I wonder what Rutgers got.

I do find it interesting that this information is slowly being leaked out around Maryland's deal with the Big 10. If Maryland was in a position of strength before to negotiate things like this, can you imagine what UVA, GT, UNC would ask for.

Rutgers probably got nothing and deserves nothing. The B1G monies are heaven enough for Rutgers. The Nbe exit fee is peanuts compared to what MD is facing.

Wow, you are an angry little man.

Md is leaving the ACC, which was for all intents a bus league for it. Other than daU, every school in the ACC can be reached in twelve hours or less by car.
RU already spends gob loads of money on travel costs in the BE. We already send all of our teams to Pa, Oh, In, Il & Wi. Plus we travel to Fl & Ky. Sure, with the C7 out we loose some bus trips, but the increased tv & ticket $ more than makes up for it.

(03-16-2013 07:38 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 07:32 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 07:15 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 05:38 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 04:55 PM)S11 Wrote:  ...or it could be a ten year sum to cover the 2-3mm annual increase in travel costs like they imply.

Excellent point! So, that being the case, every team added from here on to the B1G from the ACC should expect a "travel cost" premium? As well as fronted money against future earnings? How about a full share upon entry?
If I was Nebraska, I would sure feel all alone and shorted! Being a national brand and all!

If I was WVU in the Big 12, I would be pointing at Maryland and asking Bowlsby "What gives!"

Universities are not ran by children. The University of Nebraska President is not going to throw a fit, walk into Commissioner Delany's office and throw a temper tantrum about not getting the deal Maryland got.
I am sure all Presidents of the 12 current schools and two future schools are quite aware of why Maryland is receiving such treatment. There is a future college football that is much bigger and supports Universities much more efficiently and that is the bigger picture.

No they won't do that, I agree, but they will get something! Perhaps a neighbor.

Well, I would agree with you that Nebraska would love to see Kansas get into the Big Ten. Perhaps they would like Missouri as well. Whether or not they get it....they are in no position to make a demand, they could only make a request.

A Virginia/Missouri combination pick up would definitely be an interesting one.

East
Penn State
Maryland
Virginia
Rutgers

Central
Ohio State
Michigan
Purdue
Illinois

North
Wisconsin
Michigan State
Indiana
Northwestern

West
Nebraska
Iowa
Missouri
Minnesota


How that would correspond into movement by the SEC and then the ACC, who knows. Whether or not Missouri leadership still has a crush on the Big Ten is a big question mark.


In regards to your edit about Ohio State, I really don't understand that point at all.o

I do think this will one day be resolved, and in the manner in which you very first speculated. Right now I see two scenarios in which this could play out. In the first scenario the Big 12 negotiates new homes for all of their 10 members and we move to the 4 x 16 model (plus Notre Dame). Once those 4 x 16 are completed each conference will be left to its own to determine whether or not to move to 18. The latter will be important to prevent lawsuits. An open ended closing to this will negate the claim of exclusion by collusion. In that scenario I could see the Big 10 taking Kansas and Oklahoma, the PAC taking Kansas State, Iowa State, Texas and Texas Tech, the SEC taking Oklahoma State and West Virginia.

That would leave Tulane, South Florida, Connecticut, Baylor, T.C.U. and Cincinnati, and maybe Rice or S.M.U. for the ACC and SEC to pick over to get to 18 if so inclined as long as Baylor and T.C.U. are accounted for. Even the Big 10 would have options here if they wanted any. I don't see any of this going past 72, 68 is more likely (not counting the Irish). Anyway that is one scenario.

In the second which I consider to be much less likely Florida State would get out at a fee of 20 million as well. Perhaps the SEC would take them and West Virginia to get to 16. (If Slive realized that this would be the completion he might go for a national brand for a content increase from CBS & ESPN.) Then the ACC would pick up 3 of Cincinnati, Connecticut, Rice, T.C.U., Baylor, or Tulane to get back to 16 (plus the Irish) as long as T.C.U. and Baylor were accounted for. The Big 10 would likely still get Kansas and Oklahoma and the PAC would likely still get Iowa State, Kansas State, Texas & Texas Tech.

I just don't see much else happening. I don't think Virginia will leave the ACC alone. That means Virginia Tech would not leave either. N.C. State is not going anywhere if North Carolina is staying. Florida State is the last vulnerable school left for the ACC. If the SEC doesn't offer the Noles they aren't going anywhere. And that's exactly what I think will happen.

If you analyze these two possibilities you will see that the Big 10 comes out of it better than anyone. I spent my early years in Michigan and rooted for Sparty. I have no great bias against the Big 10. I can't stand Ohio State, but that's an old grudge against Woody. Duffy was the State coach back then and Ara was at N.D. That was good football back then in the Big 10. That era in the Big 10 compares more favorably with the present era in the SEC.

Sorry, I left out the third scenario. The Big 12 doesn't want to break apart and we stay at 5 conferences. Maybe they choose to add two to get back to enough for a championship game. In that case they move to 12, the SEC stays at 14 unless they can negotiate for West Virginia and take Cincinnati to get to 16. The ACC stays at 14 unless they pick up Connecticut and Cincinnati, and the PAC stays at 12 and the Big 10 at 14.

I see this a little differently.

The Big Ten had to write a big check to get Maryland to bolt from the ACC to the Big Ten, when Maryland was swamped with debt and cutting sports, and was never a very happy camper in the ACC to start with.

That tells me that the Big TEn is going to have real problems prying anyone else out of the ACC, schools without MAryland's budget issues.

the big check hurts Md case of exit fee restricting movement

(03-16-2013 08:26 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  the big check hurts Md case of exit fee restricting movement

That isn't the issue. The issue is the exit fee being overly punitive and not really about what Maryland is costing the conference by leaving.

Maryland did not agree to the increase, they did agree to an exit fee at one point and that is why most folks believe they will be held to that amount.

The big problem is that we are talking about State sponsored Institutions and other Institutions sponsored by other states trying to basically up the cost on them and hold them in the conference at a higher cost against their will.

This is a battle between State's now too.

(03-16-2013 08:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:26 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  the big check hurts Md case of exit fee restricting movement

That isn't the issue. The issue is the exit fee being overly punitive and not really about what Maryland is costing the conference by leaving.

Maryland did not agree to the increase, they did agree to an exit fee at one point and that is why most folks believe they will be held to that amount.

The big problem is that we are talking about State sponsored Institutions and other Institutions sponsored by other states trying to basically up the cost on them and hold them in the conference at a higher cost against their will.

This is a battle between State's now too.

This is contract law. Maryland signed it and has been abiding by it for 60 years. If Maryland wants to bring the states into it so be it. That will only prolong the inevitable. Obviously Maryland chose to leave and since then the ACC has added Louisville and ND. The conference movement argument is a joke. If teams want to leave they can, they just have to pay for it.

All this is is to help cover the exit fee for there is no way the entire league ( BigTen ) is going to approve this when teams like Nebraska, Penn State, Rutgers, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa are not asking for a penny in return for travel cost. Maryland is just not worth it what so ever to give them extra income to help cover travel expenses. When Rutgers officials were asked about this they said they did not see any reason to ask for the payout per school would cover any and all travel cost, but apparently flying out of Maryland is more expensive than any other place amongst the BigTen let alone the nation. What a joke this is IMO that they need travel expense with the payout they are about to get going to the BigTen. Who ever else gets nabbed I would ask double the payout as well as travel expense for if Maryland can get this what would a more highly respectable school ( UV, UNC, Duke etc. ) get???

In a world of constant change it's reassuring to know one can always return here to see the same expansion jihadists plotting the end of The ACC.
CJ

(03-17-2013 07:41 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  In a world of constant change it's reassuring to know one can always return here to see the same expansion jihadists plotting the end of The ACC.
CJ

People like you have an amazing gift at making yourself out to be victims. You aren't even in it yet. You are a quick learner.

(03-16-2013 08:20 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  B1G is definitely on the move. That $50M judgement, if it goes against Maryland (and therfore B1G) isn't going to stop B1G expansion....B1G has money to burn.

The burn baby burn!

(03-17-2013 04:22 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:20 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  B1G is definitely on the move. That $50M judgement, if it goes against Maryland (and therfore B1G) isn't going to stop B1G expansion....B1G has money to burn.

The burn baby burn!

It may not stop it, but it would sure slow it down. The problem now is other teams will ask for more than Maryland got. Just imagine what it would cost the B1G to poach UNC, UVA, GT now.

(03-17-2013 10:09 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 04:22 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:20 AM)Tallgrass Wrote:  B1G is definitely on the move. That $50M judgement, if it goes against Maryland (and therfore B1G) isn't going to stop B1G expansion....B1G has money to burn.

The burn baby burn!

It may not stop it, but it would sure slow it down. The problem now is other teams will ask for more than Maryland got. Just imagine what it would cost the B1G to poach UNC, UVA, GT now.

If the 52 million holds it will stop. No conference is going to help out a pair of targets to the tune of 104 million total and they all expand in pairs.

I know the ACC has been accused of having denial over their situation. Well the Big 12 is in denial if they believe that they can keep pace in the age of conference networks when they are the only one that will not have one and they will be surrounded on three sides by conferences looking for new markets. The Big 10 is having a bit of denial by failing to realize that they may not get anymore ACC teams and that they could be stuck with 14 in which the last two have done nothing to help their weak football profile, in fact may have damaged it further. The SEC is in denial in that they believe they will only expand with name brand schools that are flagship state universities. If expansion halts the SEC may have to look to teams like Cincinnati and South Florida if they want 16. There is a ton of denial out there to go around. The only conference right now that is not in some form of denial is the PAC. They realize there may not be another two teams that add value in their region of the country.

If the ACC holds and we do have further expansion it will almost assuredly come from the parsing out of the Big 12 whether it is in the next couple of months, or in 12 years.

(03-16-2013 08:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:26 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  the big check hurts Md case of exit fee restricting movement

That isn't the issue. The issue is the exit fee being overly punitive and not really about what Maryland is costing the conference by leaving.

Maryland did not agree to the increase, they did agree to an exit fee at one point and that is why most folks believe they will be held to that amount.

The big problem is that we are talking about State sponsored Institutions and other Institutions sponsored by other states trying to basically up the cost on them and hold them in the conference at a higher cost against their will.

This is a battle between State's now too.

Don't see how its overly punitive. They easily got another conf to write a 30m check. Don't see how they were held against their will. They freely picked up and left to a place that requires signing a GOR.

(03-17-2013 10:36 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:35 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 08:26 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  the big check hurts Md case of exit fee restricting movement

That isn't the issue. The issue is the exit fee being overly punitive and not really about what Maryland is costing the conference by leaving.

Maryland did not agree to the increase, they did agree to an exit fee at one point and that is why most folks believe they will be held to that amount.

The big problem is that we are talking about State sponsored Institutions and other Institutions sponsored by other states trying to basically up the cost on them and hold them in the conference at a higher cost against their will.

This is a battle between State's now too.

Don't see how its overly punitive. They easily got another conf to write a 30m check. Don't see how they were held against their will. They freely picked up and left to a place that requires signing a GOR.

Doesn't matter, they didn't vote for it and when you have a state sponsored institution basically held for ransom like that, you have a big problem.

You really don't have to understand that concept, I doubt most folks here do, especially you.

It doesn't matter if they got another conference to write another check, especially since in the eyes of the law it will be for travel expenses not exit fees. We may know why they are getting it but every cent of that will be used for travel expenses and there will be no way to trace it towards helping with the exit fee.

None of what you are saying matters in the court case. Especially leaving for a place with a GoR. And some folks have the nerve to say I just throw **** on a wall to see what sticks. That is exactly what you did with this post.

God this place is just getting more ignorant by the day.