I can't get the link to work?

(05-17-2013 02:28 PM)TIGER-PAUL Wrote:  I can't get the link to work?

Looks like they moved it.

try now.

ACC since Maryland will be in the B1G. This will fill the ACC's loss in the state plus Maryland covers that for the B1G anyway

The ESPNU thing makes me think ACC, due to the existing relationship the ACC and ESPN have.

(05-17-2013 03:36 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  The ESPNU thing makes me thing ACC, due to the existing relationship the ACC and ESPN have.

That along with Men's Lacrosse only is more likely setting the terms of the bidding between the ACC and the Big Ten. They both have to make offers that fit within the terms.

It's almost like JHU is standing at the auctioneer's podium and down before him there are two plush chairs and a bunch of regular uncomfortable chairs back a ways for spectators.

They have served themselves up on a silver platter and are probably taking offers from the Big Ten and the ACC right now.

This one could go either way.

(05-17-2013 04:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 03:36 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  The ESPNU thing makes me thing ACC, due to the existing relationship the ACC and ESPN have.

That along with Men's Lacrosse only is more likely setting the terms of the bidding between the ACC and the Big Ten. They both have to make offers that fit within the terms.

Does everyone keep forgetting that the Big Ten also has a large contract with ESPN?

Besides, with the statement in the report that JHU wouldn't share any conference revenue with whoever they joined, that likely blunts any real impact with respect to the ESPNU comment. If the Big Ten isn't going to give JHU any BTN dollars or the ACC won't give JHU any future ACC Network dollars, then I don't think the ESPNU contract really matters that much as to the conference choice. Everyone seems to have an understanding that the existing ESPNU contract won't be broken. From my vantage point, the NCAA auto-bid for lacrosse is likely much more important for the Big Ten than the TV rights, so I think they're going to be more flexible here than you would think (again, especially if everyone understands that JHU won't be getting any conference revenue).

It looks 50/50 to me when I read that report between the Big Ten and ACC. All other leagues (Big East, etc.) may try but they won't be successful there.

My gut says this is the BiG's to lose.

The ACC doesn't have as much to gain by obtaining JHU. They're SOS allows them to go to the NCAAs on a regular basis without the autobid.

And the autobid will be secured down the line since I'm sure at least one more ACC school will add the sport. I actually think at least three more will add the sport by 2020 to bring the total to 8.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-17-2013 04:33 PM)omniorange Wrote:  My gut says this is the BiG's to lose.

The ACC doesn't have as much to gain by obtaining JHU. They're SOS allows them to go to the NCAAs on a regular basis without the autobid.

And the autobid will be secured down the line since I'm sure at least one more ACC school will add the sport. I actually think at least three more will add the sport by 2020 to bring the total to 8.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, but wouldn't the ACC make an effort to make sure that JHU doesn't choose the Big Ten? I know the Big Ten schools right now are not Lacrosse powerhouses but if a league forms up and it gets shown on BTN for East Coast folks to watch then I guarantee that some other Big Ten schools will be starting programs.

The Big Ten schools can throw money at the issue and with JHU and Maryland leading the way, the league could rise in a decade or so to atleast be a challenger.

If conference look 10 years or more down the road, does the ACC think that they have nothing to worry about when it comes to the Big Ten deciding to move forward with Lacrosse as a conference?

(05-17-2013 04:20 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 04:05 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 03:36 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  The ESPNU thing makes me thing ACC, due to the existing relationship the ACC and ESPN have.

That along with Men's Lacrosse only is more likely setting the terms of the bidding between the ACC and the Big Ten. They both have to make offers that fit within the terms.

Does everyone keep forgetting that the Big Ten also has a large contract with ESPN?

This was, I take it, a response to OrangeCrush22?

Quote: Besides, with the statement in the report that JHU wouldn't share any conference revenue with whoever they joined, that likely blunts any real impact with respect to the ESPNU comment.

The statement is they don't expect to share any conference revenue. Given that they went through a deliberative process including talking to the suitors, that would seem to indicate that neither the Big Ten nor the ACC made any promises of shares of conference revenue.

And, yes, that does simplify things dramatically regarding the Big Ten on how to share revenues with an affiliate in a single sport: simply let the affiliate keep their home games and the associated contract, which would appreciably raise the profile of the Big Ten Lacrosse competition, and fold the increased exposure from JHU away games to the other Big Ten lacrosse schools in as part of the general BTN distribution that all the other members of the Big Ten share in.

Some commentators on some sites have made much of the Big Ten hockey distribution, which seems to be the rights payment for hockey distributed among the hockey schools, but even if there is something similar in lacrosse, with the smaller number of games and lower value per game, it would be a substantially smaller distribution.

Quote: If the Big Ten isn't going to give JHU any BTN dollars or the ACC won't give JHU any future ACC Network dollars, then I don't think the ESPNU contract really matters that much as to the conference choice.

It would matter more to the Big Ten, since ACC Lacrosse already gets lots of exposure on ESPNU.

Quote: Everyone seems to have an understanding that the existing ESPNU contract won't be broken.

I'd think that JHU wouldn't have made that a condition unless they thought it was a condition they could expect to be satisfied.

Quote: From my vantage point, the NCAA auto-bid for lacrosse is likely much more important for the Big Ten than the TV rights, so I think they're going to be more flexible here than you would think (again, especially if everyone understands that JHU won't be getting any conference revenue).

The auto-bid would indeed be important to the Big Ten ... "fighting for a spot in the NCAA tournament" is a substantial part of marketing conference championships in all sorts of non-revenue sports.

But the ESPNU exposure would also seem to be beneficial for BTN coverage of Big Ten lacrosse.

Quote: It looks 50/50 to me when I read that report between the Big Ten and ACC. All other leagues (Big East, etc.) may try but they won't be successful there.

Yeah, I don't think they revealed their hole cards in that report.

(05-17-2013 04:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 04:33 PM)omniorange Wrote:  My gut says this is the BiG's to lose.

The ACC doesn't have as much to gain by obtaining JHU. They're SOS allows them to go to the NCAAs on a regular basis without the autobid.

And the autobid will be secured down the line since I'm sure at least one more ACC school will add the sport. I actually think at least three more will add the sport by 2020 to bring the total to 8.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, but wouldn't the ACC make an effort to make sure that JHU doesn't choose the Big Ten? I know the Big Ten schools right now are not Lacrosse powerhouses but if a league forms up and it gets shown on BTN for East Coast folks to watch then I guarantee that some other Big Ten schools will be starting programs.

The Big Ten schools can throw money at the issue and with JHU and Maryland leading the way, the league could rise in a decade or so to atleast be a challenger.

If conference look 10 years or more down the road, does the ACC think that they have nothing to worry about when it comes to the Big Ten deciding to move forward with Lacrosse as a conference?

Having JHU for the ACC would be nice mainly because it gets them physically back in Baltimore but they don't need the boost in prestige that the BiG does, so I think the BiG pursues this more intently than does the ACC.

As for the expansion of lacrosse with more leagues participating, that is coming anyway and preventing JHU from going to the BiG isn't going to change that.

Cheers,
Neil

(05-17-2013 05:20 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 04:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 04:33 PM)omniorange Wrote:  My gut says this is the BiG's to lose.

The ACC doesn't have as much to gain by obtaining JHU. They're SOS allows them to go to the NCAAs on a regular basis without the autobid.

And the autobid will be secured down the line since I'm sure at least one more ACC school will add the sport. I actually think at least three more will add the sport by 2020 to bring the total to 8.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, but wouldn't the ACC make an effort to make sure that JHU doesn't choose the Big Ten? I know the Big Ten schools right now are not Lacrosse powerhouses but if a league forms up and it gets shown on BTN for East Coast folks to watch then I guarantee that some other Big Ten schools will be starting programs.

The Big Ten schools can throw money at the issue and with JHU and Maryland leading the way, the league could rise in a decade or so to atleast be a challenger.

If conference look 10 years or more down the road, does the ACC think that they have nothing to worry about when it comes to the Big Ten deciding to move forward with Lacrosse as a conference?

Having JHU for the ACC would be nice mainly because it gets them physically back in Baltimore but they don't need the boost in prestige that the BiG does, so I think the BiG pursues this more intently than does the ACC.

As for the expansion of lacrosse with more leagues participating, that is coming anyway and preventing JHU from going to the BiG isn't going to change that.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, I certainly hope they pick the Big Ten. I think it would be good for Maryland and Rutgers if JHU follows them in. Perhaps an ACC/B1G Lacrosse challenge in the future?

(05-17-2013 05:25 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 05:20 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 04:53 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 04:33 PM)omniorange Wrote:  My gut says this is the BiG's to lose.

The ACC doesn't have as much to gain by obtaining JHU. They're SOS allows them to go to the NCAAs on a regular basis without the autobid.

And the autobid will be secured down the line since I'm sure at least one more ACC school will add the sport. I actually think at least three more will add the sport by 2020 to bring the total to 8.

Cheers,
Neil

Yeah, but wouldn't the ACC make an effort to make sure that JHU doesn't choose the Big Ten? I know the Big Ten schools right now are not Lacrosse powerhouses but if a league forms up and it gets shown on BTN for East Coast folks to watch then I guarantee that some other Big Ten schools will be starting programs.

The Big Ten schools can throw money at the issue and with JHU and Maryland leading the way, the league could rise in a decade or so to atleast be a challenger.

If conference look 10 years or more down the road, does the ACC think that they have nothing to worry about when it comes to the Big Ten deciding to move forward with Lacrosse as a conference?

Having JHU for the ACC would be nice mainly because it gets them physically back in Baltimore but they don't need the boost in prestige that the BiG does, so I think the BiG pursues this more intently than does the ACC.

As for the expansion of lacrosse with more leagues participating, that is coming anyway and preventing JHU from going to the BiG isn't going to change that.

Cheers,
Neil

Well, I certainly hope they pick the Big Ten. I think it would be good for Maryland and Rutgers if JHU follows them in. Perhaps an ACC/B1G Lacrosse challenge in the future?

It certainly would make sense. Notre Dame and Michigan can work out their football issues.

Cheers,
Neil

with all the $$$ these big time fb schools are making, i have a hard time understanding why more schools dont field more programs.(lax and others)

I could see BC bringing its mens lax back to varsity level. Why doesnt vtech have varsity lax? In the B1G, maybe Minnesota or Wiscy will pick it up? In the BE and AAC id like to see Creighton,uconn, one of the Texas schools and likely future member St louis add.
10 years from now we will see it happening

(05-17-2013 12:25 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  If the Ivy approached them in any form, this is going to be a swift and easy decision.

Hopkins not being able to reward lacrosse scholarships would not be a swift and easy decision.

(05-17-2013 08:28 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  with all the $$$ these big time fb schools are making, i have a hard time understanding why more schools dont field more programs.(lax and others)

I could see BC bringing its mens lax back to varsity level. Why doesnt vtech have varsity lax? In the B1G, maybe Minnesota or Wiscy will pick it up? In the BE and AAC id like to see Creighton,uconn, one of the Texas schools and likely future member St louis add.
10 years from now we will see it happening

Two words: Title IX. FBS football requires 85 scholarships. To cover the reciprocal scholarship requirements for women's sports, FBS schools must offer 5 or more additional women's sports plus maintain scholarship differentials in several other sports (I.e., more women's scholarships than men's). Syracuse, for instance, sponsors 5 women's sports to maintain equivalence with football, but still must offer more women's scholarships in 5 other sports. This is not a complaint or criticism, just an observation. The US women's "gold rush" at the London Olympics can be directly attribited to Title IX (with a few notable exceptions like gymnastics). FBS schools are "fielding more programs," but they are women's programs.

(05-17-2013 08:49 PM)orangefan Wrote:  

(05-17-2013 08:28 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  with all the $$$ these big time fb schools are making, i have a hard time understanding why more schools dont field more programs.(lax and others)

I could see BC bringing its mens lax back to varsity level. Why doesnt vtech have varsity lax? In the B1G, maybe Minnesota or Wiscy will pick it up? In the BE and AAC id like to see Creighton,uconn, one of the Texas schools and likely future member St louis add.
10 years from now we will see it happening

Two words: Title IX. FBS football requires 85 scholarships. To cover the reciprocal scholarship requirements for women's sports, FBS schools must offer 5 or more additional women's sports plus maintain scholarship differentials in several other sports (I.e., more women's scholarships than men's). Syracuse, for instance, sponsors 5 women's sports to maintain equivalence with football, but still must offer more women's scholarships in 5 other sports. This is not a complaint or criticism, just an observation. The US women's "gold rush" at the London Olympics can be directly attribited to Title IX (with a few notable exceptions like gymnastics). FBS schools are "fielding more programs," but they are women's programs.

i havent really thought through the numbers but at some point, couldnt it be a more one for one addition since these schools are already in compliance? Meaning if you add Mens lax then add field hockey, gymnastics or womens lax, or maybe increase scholies offered in sports like swimming and track.
At PC they actually offer less sports than they did in my time and havent added any womens sports they didnt have during my time. sponsorship level may have increased but at what cost?

Institutions which play all the major men's team sports, namely FBS Football, Basketball, Hockey, Lacrosse, Baseball and Soccer:

- The 3 Service Academies - where everyone is on "scholarship" and they have overwhelming male to female ratios.
- Ohio State
- Michigan, which just added men's lacrosse.
- Penn State, which just added hockey.
- UMass, which just added FBS football.


Call us, B1G, at least in lax. The A10 has no men's lax, so affiliate status is fine. Remember that time last year when we went undefeated and were ranked #1? Not sure what happened in the post-season, I think it was canceled.

(05-20-2013 05:01 AM)LastMinuteman Wrote:  Institutions which play all the major men's team sports, namely FBS Football, Basketball, Hockey, Lacrosse, Baseball and Soccer:

- The 3 Service Academies - where everyone is on "scholarship" and they have overwhelming male to female ratios.
- Ohio State
- Michigan, which just added men's lacrosse.
- Penn State, which just added hockey.
- UMass, which just added FBS football.


Call us, B1G, at least in lax. The A10 has no men's lax, so affiliate status is fine. Remember that time last year when we went undefeated and were ranked #1? Not sure what happened in the post-season, I think it was canceled.

Are you trying to say that only the schools you mentioned play all of those sports?

Notre Dame?

(05-17-2013 04:33 PM)omniorange Wrote:  My gut says this is the BiG's to lose.

I agree.

The OP sounds to me like an opening position in a negotiation. By making it public, they're telling the B1G, "This is what we want," and at the same time they're telling the ACC the minimum that they have to be prepared to offer.

Why do I think this? Because I think the Big 10 would have bigger problem with those criteria than the ACC.

The Big 10 thinks of themselves as a permanent association of equals. Why should Hopkins get not one, but two chances to opt-out for free? Why should OSU, UM, and PSU have to share football money if Hopkins doesn't have to share LAX money? The ACC is clearly willing to negotiate on those items (as they did with Notre Dame), so there's no need to publicly declare this if Hopkins is indifferent between the ACC and the Big 10. But the Big 10 has a clear idea of What A Conference Should Be, and it's practically a moral argument in their minds so I don't think it's negotiable.

Negotiations like this are all about finding a way to arrange the agreement so that both sides can say they kept their principles intact. The Big 10's principles are well known, and now thanks to this article, so are Hopkins'. It will be interesting to see if a way can be found to uphold both sides' principles, or if either side decides their principles are less important than the money.