(12-27-2013 06:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 06:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Sad to see Maryland go. They were the only remaining original ACC school who cared about football, and the closest thing to a rival we had among the original schools. Hopefully soon we start to see them on the OOC slate in every sport.

I figured GT would have been in that slot for you guys. I view them more of a football school than Maryland.

I'm not surprised. Maryland and Clemson battled for ACC football titles long before Georgia Tech joined the league.

(12-27-2013 07:29 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:16 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I love how folks that were so butt hurt about Maryland sneaking around in the dead of the night to run away from the ACC are now acting like it's no big deal and they are happy about it.

Took you how many months to get over it?

I still don't like the way they did it, but Louisville is a net add over them. Their basketball and football suck right now. The ACC needed another competitive program.

Then shut up already about it. It's obvious that the sting is still there from the decision by the administration of Maryland deciding that the Big Ten helps them more with their money issues than the ACC does.

By thinking that Louisville is a net add over Maryland, that makes it obvious what the priorities are for you and other ACC folks. I am glad the Big Ten went with different standards. Programs can be built and can fall in much quicker fashion than can the quality of an Institution itself.

Have fun with your basketball program school. I like the fact that The Big Ten expanded with two more State Universities that actually have political clout. You got Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville. I am glad that you like them. They needed a home.

So again, Maryland and Rutgers were the end game for the Big Ten?

Nope, absolutely not and I will freely admit that. The proof is in the pudding though. ESPN and The Big Ten renegotiating two and a half years early. Obviously Rutgers and Maryland were good business adds.

What a bunch of bruised ego ACC fans have to say on the matter really doesn't mean ****.

do you have a link to them renegotiating with ESPN already? I hadn't seen that yet....

(12-27-2013 07:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:24 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:16 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I love how folks that were so butt hurt about Maryland sneaking around in the dead of the night to run away from the ACC are now acting like it's no big deal and they are happy about it.

Took you how many months to get over it?

I still don't like the way they did it, but Louisville is a net add over them. Their basketball and football suck right now. The ACC needed another competitive program.

Then shut up already about it. It's obvious that the sting is still there from the decision by the administration of Maryland deciding that the Big Ten helps them more with their money issues than the ACC does.

By thinking that Louisville is a net add over Maryland, that makes it obvious what the priorities are for you and other ACC folks. I am glad the Big Ten went with different standards. Programs can be built and can fall in much quicker fashion than can the quality of an Institution itself.

Have fun with your basketball program school. I like the fact that The Big Ten expanded with two more State Universities that actually have political clout. You got Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville. I am glad that you like them. They needed a home.

I like the fact that the BIG expanded with teams that bring no football identity and poor fan support.

B1G has been suffering in mediocrity. That will continue with these additions.

Whatever T Shirt fan. Renegotiations with ESPN happening two and a half years early. I guess ACC school's don't teach very much business.

Keep telling yourself that. Let's see all of those Maryland and NY/NJ fans buying the Big 10 network.

(12-27-2013 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What a bunch of bruised ego ACC fans have to say on the matter really doesn't mean ****.

The B1G already makes more TV money than anyone, and that gap will grow once they sign a new deal in 2016, whether with ESPN, FOX, CBS, whoever.

Delany has absolutely dominated the other major conferences in the arena of TV and media negotiations.

(12-27-2013 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What a bunch of bruised ego ACC fans have to say on the matter really doesn't mean ****.

The B1G already makes more TV money than anyone, and that gap will grow once they sign a new deal in 2016, whether with ESPN, FOX, CBS, whoever.

Delany has absolutely dominated the other major conferences in the arena of TV and media negotiations.

But what does that money mean? They aren't winning anything.

(12-27-2013 07:40 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:24 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:16 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I still don't like the way they did it, but Louisville is a net add over them. Their basketball and football suck right now. The ACC needed another competitive program.

Then shut up already about it. It's obvious that the sting is still there from the decision by the administration of Maryland deciding that the Big Ten helps them more with their money issues than the ACC does.

By thinking that Louisville is a net add over Maryland, that makes it obvious what the priorities are for you and other ACC folks. I am glad the Big Ten went with different standards. Programs can be built and can fall in much quicker fashion than can the quality of an Institution itself.

Have fun with your basketball program school. I like the fact that The Big Ten expanded with two more State Universities that actually have political clout. You got Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville. I am glad that you like them. They needed a home.

I like the fact that the BIG expanded with teams that bring no football identity and poor fan support.

B1G has been suffering in mediocrity. That will continue with these additions.

Whatever T Shirt fan. Renegotiations with ESPN happening two and a half years early. I guess ACC school's don't teach very much business.

Keep telling yourself that. Let's see all of those Maryland and NY/NJ fans buying the Big 10 network.

Thanks for the proof that you don't know how it works. Were you involved in Athletics when you were at UNC? That might explain a few things.

(12-27-2013 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:40 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:24 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Then shut up already about it. It's obvious that the sting is still there from the decision by the administration of Maryland deciding that the Big Ten helps them more with their money issues than the ACC does.

By thinking that Louisville is a net add over Maryland, that makes it obvious what the priorities are for you and other ACC folks. I am glad the Big Ten went with different standards. Programs can be built and can fall in much quicker fashion than can the quality of an Institution itself.

Have fun with your basketball program school. I like the fact that The Big Ten expanded with two more State Universities that actually have political clout. You got Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville. I am glad that you like them. They needed a home.

I like the fact that the BIG expanded with teams that bring no football identity and poor fan support.

B1G has been suffering in mediocrity. That will continue with these additions.

Whatever T Shirt fan. Renegotiations with ESPN happening two and a half years early. I guess ACC school's don't teach very much business.

Keep telling yourself that. Let's see all of those Maryland and NY/NJ fans buying the Big 10 network.

Thanks for the proof that you don't know how it works. Were you involved in Athletics when you were at UNC? That might explain a few things.

Show me the money. You like flapping your gums, but you don't have anything to back it up.

(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What a bunch of bruised ego ACC fans have to say on the matter really doesn't mean ****.

The B1G already makes more TV money than anyone, and that gap will grow once they sign a new deal in 2016, whether with ESPN, FOX, CBS, whoever.

Delany has absolutely dominated the other major conferences in the arena of TV and media negotiations.

But what does that money mean? They aren't winning anything.

My god you keep providing the proof. What do you think a University is for? What do you think is the real point of Athletics at these schools?

You can't be this clueless?

I don't even have to go into that comment about not winning anything. That is just more proof positive that this is all about your insane connection to the ACC and how all of this has bruised your own personal ego so much that you will type up anything no matter how stupid it is.

Here is the first hint. Making ABSOLUTE statements is an ignorant way to go about posting in this kind of a conversation. The word "anything" immediately makes a statement an Absolute statement.

Do yourself a favor and get a band aid for that bruised ego.

(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What a bunch of bruised ego ACC fans have to say on the matter really doesn't mean ****.

The B1G already makes more TV money than anyone, and that gap will grow once they sign a new deal in 2016, whether with ESPN, FOX, CBS, whoever.

Delany has absolutely dominated the other major conferences in the arena of TV and media negotiations.

But what does that money mean? They aren't winning anything.

College athletics aren't ends in themselves, they are means to ends - raising money for the university, raising its profile among alumni, prospective students, the business community. It isn't about who wins games on the field, except to the extent that winning helps achieve those broader ends.

And with respect to those broader ends, the B1G has always succeeded in spades.

But FWIW, the B1G has won 12 BCS bowl games. Several conferences have won far fewer.

(12-27-2013 07:45 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:40 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:24 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I like the fact that the BIG expanded with teams that bring no football identity and poor fan support.

B1G has been suffering in mediocrity. That will continue with these additions.

Whatever T Shirt fan. Renegotiations with ESPN happening two and a half years early. I guess ACC school's don't teach very much business.

Keep telling yourself that. Let's see all of those Maryland and NY/NJ fans buying the Big 10 network.

Thanks for the proof that you don't know how it works. Were you involved in Athletics when you were at UNC? That might explain a few things.

Show me the money. You like flapping your gums, but you don't have anything to back it up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...-contract/

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/1-big-ten/

(12-27-2013 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:29 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:16 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:13 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  I love how folks that were so butt hurt about Maryland sneaking around in the dead of the night to run away from the ACC are now acting like it's no big deal and they are happy about it.

Took you how many months to get over it?

I still don't like the way they did it, but Louisville is a net add over them. Their basketball and football suck right now. The ACC needed another competitive program.

Then shut up already about it. It's obvious that the sting is still there from the decision by the administration of Maryland deciding that the Big Ten helps them more with their money issues than the ACC does.

By thinking that Louisville is a net add over Maryland, that makes it obvious what the priorities are for you and other ACC folks. I am glad the Big Ten went with different standards. Programs can be built and can fall in much quicker fashion than can the quality of an Institution itself.

Have fun with your basketball program school. I like the fact that The Big Ten expanded with two more State Universities that actually have political clout. You got Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville. I am glad that you like them. They needed a home.

So again, Maryland and Rutgers were the end game for the Big Ten?

Nope, absolutely not and I will freely admit that. The proof is in the pudding though. ESPN and The Big Ten renegotiating two and a half years early. Obviously Rutgers and Maryland were good business adds.

What a bunch of bruised ego ACC fans have to say on the matter really doesn't mean ****.

ESPN renegotiated after the ACC added ND, big deal.

Now, that the Big Ten didn't renegotiate after adding Nebraska is important. That has to be accounted for when looking at any bump in the contract. The Big Ten didn't want to reopen the contract with Nebraska's add, but are willing to look at things with the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. Why is that do you think?

(12-27-2013 07:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:42 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  What a bunch of bruised ego ACC fans have to say on the matter really doesn't mean ****.

The B1G already makes more TV money than anyone, and that gap will grow once they sign a new deal in 2016, whether with ESPN, FOX, CBS, whoever.

Delany has absolutely dominated the other major conferences in the arena of TV and media negotiations.

But what does that money mean? They aren't winning anything.

My god you keep providing the proof. What do you think a University is for? What do you think is the real point of Athletics at these schools?

You can't be this clueless?

I don't even have to go into that comment about not winning anything. That is just more proof positive that this is all about your insane connection to the ACC and how all of this has bruised your own personal ego so much that you will type up anything no matter how stupid it is.

Here is the first hint. Making ABSOLUTE statements is an ignorant way to go about posting in this kind of a conversation. The word "anything" immediately makes a statement an Absolute statement.

Do yourself a favor and get a band aid for that bruised ego.

No bruised ego here. I'm quite content. All I asked for was evidence...which you have none.

We all know realignment is completely about money and athletics.

(12-27-2013 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:45 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:40 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:32 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

Whatever T Shirt fan. Renegotiations with ESPN happening two and a half years early. I guess ACC school's don't teach very much business.

Keep telling yourself that. Let's see all of those Maryland and NY/NJ fans buying the Big 10 network.

Thanks for the proof that you don't know how it works. Were you involved in Athletics when you were at UNC? That might explain a few things.

Show me the money. You like flapping your gums, but you don't have anything to back it up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...-contract/

The ACC wounded itself financially when it signed that disastrous 12 year, $155 million a year deal with ESPN in 2010 that was touted to high-heaven when it was signed but has proven to be so poor that the conference almost split because of it.

Adding Pitt, Cuse, and Louisville prompted ESPN to sweeten the pot, but only a little, and at the cost of getting a lot more ACC product and for more years. ESPN had the ACC by the balls, and it squeezed them.

(12-27-2013 07:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/1-big-ten/

Dude I don't care about your money. You're not doing anything with it. You're not winning championships in any major sport. You barely have higher TV ratings than the other conferences (outside of the SEC). The B1G was supposed to compete with the SEC but you're getting killed and you know it and Delany knows it.

(12-27-2013 07:33 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 06:43 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 06:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Sad to see Maryland go. They were the only remaining original ACC school who cared about football, and the closest thing to a rival we had among the original schools. Hopefully soon we start to see them on the OOC slate in every sport.

I figured GT would have been in that slot for you guys. I view them more of a football school than Maryland.

I'm not surprised. Maryland and Clemson battled for ACC football titles long before Georgia Tech joined the league.

To the 25-30 UNC football fans the term "battling for ACC football titles" has as much meaning as talking about unicorns.

Maryland won a national title as a member of the ACC, they won 9 ACC titles, and played in several Big 4 bowls. Maryland more often than not was Clemson's ally fighting the Tobacco Rd bias that just about drove this conference in the ground. The Terps will be missed.

(12-27-2013 07:52 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:33 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:29 PM)Dasville Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:16 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  I still don't like the way they did it, but Louisville is a net add over them. Their basketball and football suck right now. The ACC needed another competitive program.

Then shut up already about it. It's obvious that the sting is still there from the decision by the administration of Maryland deciding that the Big Ten helps them more with their money issues than the ACC does.

By thinking that Louisville is a net add over Maryland, that makes it obvious what the priorities are for you and other ACC folks. I am glad the Big Ten went with different standards. Programs can be built and can fall in much quicker fashion than can the quality of an Institution itself.

Have fun with your basketball program school. I like the fact that The Big Ten expanded with two more State Universities that actually have political clout. You got Pitt, Syracuse and Louisville. I am glad that you like them. They needed a home.

So again, Maryland and Rutgers were the end game for the Big Ten?

Nope, absolutely not and I will freely admit that. The proof is in the pudding though. ESPN and The Big Ten renegotiating two and a half years early. Obviously Rutgers and Maryland were good business adds.

What a bunch of bruised ego ACC fans have to say on the matter really doesn't mean ****.

ESPN renegotiated after the ACC added ND, big deal.

Now, that the Big Ten didn't renegotiate after adding Nebraska is important. That has to be accounted for when looking at any bump in the contract. The Big Ten didn't want to reopen the contract with Nebraska's add, but are willing to look at things with the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. Why is that do you think?

See, now this is a good leading question. You ask good leading questions which is why I have to be careful around you sometimes. I have to catch myself before saying too much.

I have my own personal theories on what it means and have had some conversations about it. There are some seemingly obvious conclusions folks could draw but from what I have seen, the situation is not so simple and it isn't simply just about the additions of Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers.

What I WILL say is that I do believe the timing right now matters very much.

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:49 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:45 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:44 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:40 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  Keep telling yourself that. Let's see all of those Maryland and NY/NJ fans buying the Big 10 network.

Thanks for the proof that you don't know how it works. Were you involved in Athletics when you were at UNC? That might explain a few things.

Show me the money. You like flapping your gums, but you don't have anything to back it up.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2...-contract/

The ACC wounded itself financially when it signed that disastrous 12 year, $155 million a year deal with ESPN in 2010 that was touted to high-heaven when it was signed but has proven to be so poor that the conference almost split because of it.

Adding Pitt, Cuse, and Louisville prompted ESPN to sweeten the pot, but only a little, and at the cost of getting a lot more ACC product and for more years. ESPN had the ACC by the balls, and it squeezed them.

That was done when both FSU and Miami were down. The timing sucked. But truthfully, it will actually work out better. A lot of moves where made to get ND in line. The conference stands to make a good bit more money on that alone.

(12-27-2013 07:54 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(12-27-2013 07:51 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  http://www.forbes.com/pictures/emdm45lmel/1-big-ten/

Dude I don't care about your money. You're not doing anything with it. You're not winning championships in any major sport. You barely have higher TV ratings than the other conferences (outside of the SEC). The B1G was supposed to compete with the SEC but you're getting killed and you know it and Delany knows it.

You do realize that college athletic conferences are not professional minor leagues? They serve a different purpose than professional sport leagues.

Just go back to worshipping Cro-Magnon men that are getting handouts in order to entertain the masses and to help raise money for the Universities that offer them scholarships.

You don't understand the bigger picture.