(03-04-2013 12:34 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:15 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Like I stated earlier -- for all of the talk of the B1G wanting Notre Dame, Texas and UNC, the B1G actually ended up with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.

I think your point has merit. But something Frank pointed out a while back was that other than the Moby Dicks in all this nonsense - ND and Texas - the two schools that would add the most cash flow to the B1G were Rutgers and Maryland because of the TV sets they would snare for the BTN.

So it's not like they just completely settled here. They have a plan, and those two schools have fit into the plan from the beginning.

Right now, I think the only major, strategic question left to be answered is whether or not the PAC goes to 16 with Texahoma, thereby blocking any meaningful expansion past 16 by the SEC, ACC or B1G. OR does the B1G move the bar up to 20 and pretty much make PAC expansion impossible?

If the B1G can go to 20, the SEC will likely be able to follow because the ACC will be weakened, then Texas will be in the driver's seat for creating a major conference in whatever fashion it wants.

This is what makes conference expansion interesting...it is like the game of chess.

(03-03-2013 07:42 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  I think an important point was made earlier. If UNC chooses not to move, then BIG may go on without them, leaving UNC in the dust as NCSU and maybe Duke or another ACC school leave and take the BIG offer. The act of doing nothing by UNC may have a more pronounced affect. Being from Cincinnati I can say there is a lot to that statement. Under Greg Williams as President of Cincinnati, we held pat with the Big East supporting the league throughout and look what it got us? Nothing? So staying pat as the world crumbles around you as Greg Williams chose is not good, not good at all. The UNC deal leaving to go anywhere is good for Cincinnati.

Let's be serious here, we stayed in the Big East because we have nowhere else to go. Don't act like we held pat and turned down offers to stay with the Big East and it fell apart on us.

(03-04-2013 12:34 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:15 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Like I stated earlier -- for all of the talk of the B1G wanting Notre Dame, Texas and UNC, the B1G actually ended up with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.

I think your point has merit. But something Frank pointed out a while back was that other than the Moby Dicks in all this nonsense - ND and Texas - the two schools that would add the most cash flow to the B1G were Rutgers and Maryland because of the TV sets they would snare for the BTN.

So it's not like they just completely settled here. They have a plan, and those two schools have fit into the plan from the beginning.

Those valuation figures were actually done by a poster on FrankTheTank's blog by the name of Patrick, and are probably over-inflated at best when one sees how he arrived at those figures.

But I do agree that after ND, Texas, and Nebraska, the best gains from a BTN point of view only (not a national TV contract point of view) were likely Maryland, Rutgers, and Syracuse (in some order) based on the candidates being mentioned back in the Summer of 2010.

However, keep in mind, UNC, Virginia, FSU, etc were not being seriously mentioned at that time and Patrick's analysis did not include them.

If we are to believe the rumors over the past six months, then the point about settling for Maryland and Rutgers has even greater merit when comparing the net benefit of those two institutions to the likes of UNC, FSU, and Virginia.

Quote:Right now, I think the only major, strategic question left to be answered is whether or not the PAC goes to 16 with Texahoma, thereby blocking any meaningful expansion past 16 by the SEC, ACC or B1G. OR does the B1G move the bar up to 20 and pretty much make PAC expansion impossible?

If the B1G can go to 20, the SEC will likely be able to follow because the ACC will be weakened, then Texas will be in the driver's seat for creating a major conference in whatever fashion it wants.

Time will tell.

Cheers,
Neil

(03-01-2013 03:57 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  What it seems to all boil down to is that for years, the following schools have had a standing B1G offer: Texas, Notre Dame and Carolina.

Yet, for all their efforts, the B1G actually landed small fish Maryland and Rutgers.
The ACC, for its part, landed the following new members: Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame and Louisville.

The ACC is safe, thank you very much.
Now, when Notre Dame decides to play conference football and brings Navy along for the ride, the process will be completed.

Wait, the ACC is so safe it has to take a crap school like Navy in order to try and secure ND's full-time membership?

The Big Ten and the SEC moving to 20 and 16 is basically the PAC's only chance for them to have meaningful expansion in the future.

Why is that? Because with the Big Ten and SEC moving to conferences of 20 and 16, the Networks are going to praise them for such with their contracts. For the Big 12 and Texas in particular that will be very bad news.

At that point we may very well be seeing the rumors about new NCAA rules coming or they may already be made. There will be plenty of pressure for the old 8 left in the Big 12 to vote for dissolution so they can then merge with the PAC. There will be plenty of football power in that conference. It would easily be on par or better then both of the the other two majors.

That would then open up WVU and TCU for the SEC. They then only need two more and we have our 3x20 model. There would probably be a couple of mid-major conferences sitting at 16 in order to use the soon to be conference tournaments.

(03-04-2013 12:15 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 07:42 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  I think an important point was made earlier. If UNC chooses not to move, then BIG may go on without them, leaving UNC in the dust as NCSU and maybe Duke or another ACC school leave and take the BIG offer. The act of doing nothing by UNC may have a more pronounced affect. Being from Cincinnati I can say there is a lot to that statement. Under Greg Williams as President of Cincinnati, we held pat with the Big East supporting the league throughout and look what it got us? Nothing? So staying pat as the world crumbles around you as Greg Williams chose is not good, not good at all. The UNC deal leaving to go anywhere is good for Cincinnati.

Wait..what?

a) NC State would first need to have a B1G invitation. UNC, for all of the stuff we hate about them, is the preferred NC-based target for the B1G.

b) The poster clearly doesn't have an understanding of NC politics. NC State isn't leaving the ACC for the B1G and leave UNC behind at the same time.

c) UNC doing nothing means that 1) Duke is doing nothing, and 2) UVA is doing nothing. GT may or may not go, but the grand prize in all of this is UNC (love 'em or hate 'em).

For the ACC to be cracked, an entity would have to crack the triumphant that is UNC-Duke-UVA, and as long as that triumphant is in place, NC State, Wake, Clemson and VT are staying put.

Like I stated earlier -- for all of the talk of the B1G wanting Notre Dame, Texas and UNC, the B1G actually ended up with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.

One of those schools left because Texas created enough acrimony and/or instability to force it out.

Another one of those schools left because a) long-standing conference acrimony coupled with b) huge athletic department debt, and c) a school president who believes the grass in Minneapolis is greener than the grass in Winston-Salem.

And the other school is just happy to be along for the ride (great for them!) b/c the B1G needed a "partner" school and couldn't get, again, Notre Dame, Texas or UNC.

I'm pretty sure you're looking for the word "triumvirate."

I think that the UMD/Rutgers addition can't be analyzed completely yet. It was a strong move (I preached Rutgers-to-B1G for three years) but was it a great move? That's not clear yet.

It did finish off the Big East once and for all (Louisville replace UMD and Rutgers gone...), and effectively put the target on the ACC's back for everyone who potentially could poach.

But will it shake the ACC loose enough to make its PRIME targets (UNC and its ilk) come free too? If the UMD addition gets the B1G UNC/UVA and maybe Duke/GaTech/FSU...then it could be a great move. If Notre Dame also lands in the Big Ten's lap because of ACC instability, then it's a GENIUS move. That's still to be seen though. Skeptics abound.

------

The Nebraska was a similar move as the Rutgers/UMD move, except it was aimed at the Big 12. Nebraska and Colorado were major players...but Texas and TAMU were the Big Ten's trophy schools. Maybe I'm delusional, but I think a 4-school addition (following Nebraska) of TAMU, UT, Rutgers, and ND would have been Delany's A1 plan.

ESPN though trumped Delany when it offered Texas something that no other school ever received--its own exclusive network. It kept Texas satiated in the status quo...which then pissed off TAMU enough to bolt eastward to the SEC (which also benefited ESPN as the prime stockholder in that conference's future). ESPN paid a high price to foil the Big Ten, but ultimately, it kept two great assets out of the Big Ten's clutches.

The Nebraska moved ultimately failed for the Big Ten, but it was still a strong move.

Perhaps the question we need to ask is how can/will the four-letter network keep the ACC's jewels out of the Big Ten's grasp? Is ESPN ready to pay to keep the ACC intact?[/align]

(03-04-2013 12:34 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 12:15 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  Like I stated earlier -- for all of the talk of the B1G wanting Notre Dame, Texas and UNC, the B1G actually ended up with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.

I think your point has merit. But something Frank pointed out a while back was that other than the Moby Dicks in all this nonsense - ND and Texas - the two schools that would add the most cash flow to the B1G were Rutgers and Maryland because of the TV sets they would snare for the BTN.

So it's not like they just completely settled here. They have a plan, and those two schools have fit into the plan from the beginning.

Right now, I think the only major, strategic question left to be answered is whether or not the PAC goes to 16 with Texahoma, thereby blocking any meaningful expansion past 16 by the SEC, ACC or B1G. OR does the B1G move the bar up to 20 and pretty much make PAC expansion impossible?

If the B1G can go to 20, the SEC will likely be able to follow because the ACC will be weakened, then Texas will be in the driver's seat for creating a major conference in whatever fashion it wants.

This would be true if everyone in NYC was willing to pay to watch Rutgers. However, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers wouldn't watch Rutgers for free. A) There isn't a strong atatchement to RU in the city (many New Yorkers are not originally from NY, or are from 2nd generation families that haven't fully developed the type of local ties that are common in many other areas of America), and B) there are too many other entertainment options (i.e. who cares about any college sports when the Jets/Giants, Yankees/Mets, Kicks/Nets, Rangers/Devils/Islanders, or Red Bulls are playing? And even then, who cares about pro sports when there are a million other things to do at any given time?). RU doesn't make a lot of money and RU won't see the HUGE spending increase that many are projecting, because RU athletics are heavily financed by student fees. The increased B1G payout will mostly just decrease student fees. Don't get me wrong, it will increase spending, but it will only do it by about half as much as most think.

The B1G took RU because of a variety of reasons. A) RU has potential, but not to be confused with realized potential. As it stands right now, RU doesn't make a ton of money and nobody in NYC cares about RU athletics, but the B1G is gambling that RU will be able to spark an interest in the city. IMO, this is a horrible bet, but the other reasons make up for it. B) PSU wanted more eastern games and was thinking about defecting to the ACC (as per Wisconsin's AD). C) Adding NYC games makes B1G alumni in NYC happy, and there are more B1G alumni in NYC than anywhere outside the midwest. D) NJ produces a decent amount of high quality FB and BB athletes. Given that the B1G already has a strong presence in talent-rich areas, this isn't a huge deal for them, but it's a plus. Then finally, E) NJ sends a LOT of kids out of state for college. The B1G is gambling that advertising in NJ by playing RU will help them recruit high quality students, which will help their academics.

UMD is a light version of RU, but the same thing general forces apply.

(03-04-2013 12:37 PM)Maize Wrote:  This is what makes conference expansion interesting...it is like the game of chess.

Definitely. Hell, it's probably more complicated because it has more variables. In chess, at least you know what all the pieces can do. In the conference realignment game, not only do you not know what all the pieces can do, but some of the pieces on your side of the board will flat out lie to you about their intentions and abilities.

(03-04-2013 01:41 PM)omniorange Wrote:  However, keep in mind, UNC, Virginia, FSU, etc were not being seriously mentioned at that time and Patrick's analysis did not include them.

If we are to believe the rumors over the past six months, then the point about settling for Maryland and Rutgers has even greater merit when comparing the net benefit of those two institutions to the likes of UNC, FSU, and Virginia.

Cheers,
Neil

Good points. It's possible that those schools are more valuable than either Rutgers or Maryland and that the BTN did settle in a sense.

(03-05-2013 06:03 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  This would be true if everyone in NYC was willing to pay to watch Rutgers. However, the overwhelming majority of New Yorkers wouldn't watch Rutgers for free. ...

The B1G took RU because of a variety of reasons. A) RU has potential, but not to be confused with realized potential. As it stands right now, RU doesn't make a ton of money and nobody in NYC cares about RU athletics, but the B1G is gambling that RU will be able to spark an interest in the city.

UMD is a light version of RU, but the same thing general forces apply.

I don't personally disagree. But they think there is enough interest to allow the BTN to blackmail monthly fees out of the cable companies, and that is what counts. You have to figure that they got the answer to that question before pulling the trigger on the deal. And I think your points about Penn State were definitely a factor as well.

What people need to realize is that realignment is not over. To make judgements as if it is over is just silly. Describing the Rutgers and Maryland moves as "settling" is just silly. Notre Dame was basically threatening to permanently anchor the ACC. Delany did what he could at the time to counter that. I personally think he did a pretty damned good job at it considering where the national conversation is in the Media now. He and the Big Ten are not ending expansion with the likes of Maryland and Rutgers. Those are not final moves, period.

To try and argue that they are is extreme wishful thinking by some.

(03-04-2013 12:15 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  

(03-03-2013 07:42 AM)Vewb1 Wrote:  I think an important point was made earlier. If UNC chooses not to move, then BIG may go on without them, leaving UNC in the dust as NCSU and maybe Duke or another ACC school leave and take the BIG offer. The act of doing nothing by UNC may have a more pronounced affect. Being from Cincinnati I can say there is a lot to that statement. Under Greg Williams as President of Cincinnati, we held pat with the Big East supporting the league throughout and look what it got us? Nothing? So staying pat as the world crumbles around you as Greg Williams chose is not good, not good at all. The UNC deal leaving to go anywhere is good for Cincinnati.

Wait..what?

a) NC State would first need to have a B1G invitation. UNC, for all of the stuff we hate about them, is the preferred NC-based target for the B1G.

b) The poster clearly doesn't have an understanding of NC politics. NC State isn't leaving the ACC for the B1G and leave UNC behind at the same time.

c) UNC doing nothing means that 1) Duke is doing nothing, and 2) UVA is doing nothing. GT may or may not go, but the grand prize in all of this is UNC (love 'em or hate 'em).

For the ACC to be cracked, an entity would have to crack the triumphant that is UNC-Duke-UVA, and as long as that triumphant is in place, NC State, Wake, Clemson and VT are staying put.

Like I stated earlier -- for all of the talk of the B1G wanting Notre Dame, Texas and UNC, the B1G actually ended up with Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.

One of those schools left because Texas created enough acrimony and/or instability to force it out.

Another one of those schools left because a) long-standing conference acrimony coupled with b) huge athletic department debt, and c) a school president who believes the grass in Minneapolis is greener than the grass in Winston-Salem.

And the other school is just happy to be along for the ride (great for them!) b/c the B1G needed a "partner" school and couldn't get, again, Notre Dame, Texas or UNC.

Dereck, you definitely know the Chapel Hill culture since you work and live there. As I have said before, I have family and friends who sit in those big lazy boy recliners at the Dean Dome and have been big swinging richard donors forever. They have no interest in the Big1G and from what they tell me, niether does the AD or BOT. UNC enjoys being King of the Tobacco Road mafia. The only way the Big1G is going to be successful in getting UNC out of the ACC is by a flanking manuever of getting GT and maybe one more ACC to sign on while the SEC at the same time gets two ACC schools and the panic sets in with other schools begging the Big12 for memberships. Going straight at UNC is probably not going to work. They are going to wait until they have to leave and only then will they leave.

(03-04-2013 03:37 PM)Marge Schott Wrote:  

(03-01-2013 03:57 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  What it seems to all boil down to is that for years, the following schools have had a standing B1G offer: Texas, Notre Dame and Carolina.

Yet, for all their efforts, the B1G actually landed small fish Maryland and Rutgers.
The ACC, for its part, landed the following new members: Syracuse, Pitt, Notre Dame and Louisville.

The ACC is safe, thank you very much.
Now, when Notre Dame decides to play conference football and brings Navy along for the ride, the process will be completed.

Wait, the ACC is so safe it has to take a crap school like Navy in order to try and secure ND's full-time membership?

I'd just like to reiterate to all of my "fans" out there that, yes indeed, Navy would be a CRAP addition to the ACC.

(03-05-2013 08:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What people need to realize is that realignment is not over. To make judgements as if it is over is just silly. Describing the Rutgers and Maryland moves as "settling" is just silly. Notre Dame was basically threatening to permanently anchor the ACC. Delany did what he could at the time to counter that. I personally think he did a pretty damned good job at it considering where the national conversation is in the Media now. He and the Big Ten are not ending expansion with the likes of Maryland and Rutgers. Those are not final moves, period.

To try and argue that they are is extreme wishful thinking by some.

I hope you realize that by speaking logically and making sense you are only going to upset the ACC fans around here. Quick, save yourself.....make a post that Grants of Rights are meaningless or that the Big 12 was begging Louisville to join but the Cardinals carefully weighed their options & determined the ACC was the right move for the future.

More evidence that the B1G won't be expanding for years.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130...ear-future

(03-06-2013 09:40 PM)westwolf Wrote:  More evidence that the B1G won't be expanding for years.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130...ear-future

Yep! Definitely happening now. There hasn't been a denial in the last 5 years that wasn't followed up by an addition.

(03-06-2013 09:40 PM)westwolf Wrote:  More evidence that the B1G won't be expanding for years.

http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130...ear-future

So a local reporter asks him a question and he is supposed to spill the beans about whatever he knows?

No, he is supposed to make a very open ended denial, which is exactly what he did so that way he isn't stepping on any toes yet the statement cannot come back to bite him later on because it is so open ended.

(03-06-2013 05:55 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 08:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What people need to realize is that realignment is not over. To make judgements as if it is over is just silly. Describing the Rutgers and Maryland moves as "settling" is just silly. Notre Dame was basically threatening to permanently anchor the ACC. Delany did what he could at the time to counter that. I personally think he did a pretty damned good job at it considering where the national conversation is in the Media now. He and the Big Ten are not ending expansion with the likes of Maryland and Rutgers. Those are not final moves, period.

To try and argue that they are is extreme wishful thinking by some.

I hope you realize that by speaking logically and making sense you are only going to upset the ACC fans around here. Quick, save yourself.....make a post that Grants of Rights are meaningless or that the Big 12 was begging Louisville to join but the Cardinals carefully weighed their options & determined the ACC was the right move for the future.

I think it is logical that the Big 10 wants our nuts. That doesn't mean it is logical that it will happen easily, or that it will happen period. The big, dopey, rich kid can ask us out all he wants, in the words of Borat: "You will never get this!" So sure, it makes sense to invite our friends and neighbors in order to entice us. I see that as a very crafty plan, invented by a Tar Heel. Man, we should just start taking credit for everything!

(03-06-2013 05:55 PM)Big 12 Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 08:52 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What people need to realize is that realignment is not over. To make judgements as if it is over is just silly. Describing the Rutgers and Maryland moves as "settling" is just silly. Notre Dame was basically threatening to permanently anchor the ACC. Delany did what he could at the time to counter that. I personally think he did a pretty damned good job at it considering where the national conversation is in the Media now. He and the Big Ten are not ending expansion with the likes of Maryland and Rutgers. Those are not final moves, period.

To try and argue that they are is extreme wishful thinking by some.

I hope you realize that by speaking logically and making sense you are only going to upset the ACC fans around here. Quick, save yourself.....make a post that Grants of Rights are meaningless or that the Big 12 was begging Louisville to join but the Cardinals carefully weighed their options & determined the ACC was the right move for the future.

Touche.....