(05-23-2020 07:27 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 09:40 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 09:22 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-23-2020 08:50 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Both fit the institutional profile of Big Ten schools, but the athletic value to the northeast and linkage to PSU is overstated at best or simply untrue.

Thing is, though, since adding Rutgers and MD, B1G revenues have gone through the roof. So they certainly haven't hurt the B1G in any discernible way.

It has helped to create an interesting dichotomy however. If you examine revenues in the Big 10 it is clear that the top 5 schools do exceedingly well in ratings, attendance, and revenue. It is equally clear that the bottom 5 schools drag all averages way down. What is thinning in the Big 10 is the middle. So while they are very healthy and certainly in no immediate danger of losing status it is clearly but slowly becoming a conference of have and have nots by SEC and Big 10 standards, certainly not when compared to the PAC and ACC.

Maybe over time, the discussion of revenue can be reviewed for what the Big Ten got out of heading further east: back into the homes of Big Ten school alumni no longer within the old footprint, and getting away with taking advantage of cable billings by sticking flags in densely populated regions whether those within the region cared about the Big Ten or not. What the Big Ten failed to handle moving east was actually taking programs that actually had deep or traditional ties with any of the Big Ten schools, or each other.

And, I get it. I know the money is so good for the Big Ten when it picked up a big NY metro state school. However, just as much as that pay day was so big, images such as this and this? That won't be forgotten, either. You don't get that from schools who have football pedigree up in these parts. You don't get that from programs who consider the opponents rivals, either.

There simply isn't a region for football as fractured or gutted of its traditions more than the northeast. There were plenty of us up here who were very involved with the local scene, even if there wasn't a conference banner over many of us. Our "schools" robbed us of our heritage and traditions. And, quite honestly, our state houses let it go too far, because, and I agree 100% with an earlier post: having gotten the regionalism right, our local and state economies would be feeling much better because there was localized interest, as well as regional.

It falls on the ACC, too. It seemed so hellbent on ridding itself of its lesser Big East competitor, its not like it succeeded in adding the right combination of programs that really controlled the northeast. And, yeah, that means not all roads up here run through Happy Valley. The ACC goofed on WVU.

1. How did the ACC goof on WVa if adding WVa was an existential no for UVa, MD, Duke, GT, and Wake Forest? Those 5 didn't want them for academic and social reasons.

2. Surely you don't mean the right combination to control the Northeastern US includes Rutgers and West Virginia do you?

3. People seem to forget that MD didn't want Penn State in the ACC for decades and that MD screwed the rest of the conference vis a vie Penn State back in 2012.