(03-11-2015 10:51 AM)msm96wolf Wrote:  I don't think UNC Board of Governors, UNC School system and/or NC Legislator would allow UNC or NCSU to just bolt to another conference. They would lose so much funding it would be ridiculous.

They've already lost a tremendous amount of funding:

Quote:http://universityrelations.unc.edu/budge...lstatecuts
What are the total state cuts since the economic crisis hit?

What are the total state cuts since the economic crisis hit? By the end of fiscal 2011-2012, the University will have absorbed more than $231 million in total state cuts since 2008. That total does not account for additional funding that includes tuition revenue or enrollment growth funding, as the following graphs illustrate.

If another -- perhaps "rust belt" -- conference wanted to help make some of that up, I think they would be inclined to at least listen.

If Aresco really believes that he should be fired today. He should be on the phone with every school every week verifying where they stand. Yes the schools would probably lie to him but part of his job is to figure out who's is lying. He should also heave a list of racement candidates for every school in the conference.

(03-11-2015 03:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Marinatto was the last to know when Syracuse and Pitt left for the ACC. He thought things were hunky-dory up until that point.

IIRC, Marinatto found out about Pitt and Syracuse when Brett McMurphy asked him about it.

Aresco doesn't believe it. You guys know these folks lie. He is just trying to soothe folks that are anxious because of all the talks going on.

(03-11-2015 09:29 AM)Otacon Wrote:  How does Kansas go from on the cusp of being left without a conference last realignment, to being the front runner in the next realignment?

They're not.

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 07:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 05:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Big 12 is not expanding. The next expansion, if it ever happens, will be the Big 10 going to 16 with UConn and Kansas.

Why on earth would the B1G want UConn when they already have Rutgers?

I wasn't being serious. But now that you asked ...

1) UConn has basketball (male and female versions). Rutgers does not.
2) UConn adds 10% of the NYC market, which adds to Rutgers' 35% of that market.
3) UConn also has its own top 25 market with (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield).
4) UConn has: a) top level hockey, b) elite soccer, and c) a quality baseball program. I understand the Big 10 is starting to emphasize hockey.
5) In academics, UConn is the #16 public FBS school.
6) In academics, UConn would fit in well per U.S. News:

Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 07:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 05:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Big 12 is not expanding. The next expansion, if it ever happens, will be the Big 10 going to 16 with UConn and Kansas.

Why on earth would the B1G want UConn when they already have Rutgers?

I wasn't being serious. But now that you asked ...

1) UConn has basketball (male and female versions). Rutgers does not.
2) UConn adds 10% of the NYC market, which adds to Rutgers' 35% of that market.
3) UConn also has its own top 25 market with (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield).
4) UConn has: a) top level hockey, b) elite soccer, and c) a quality baseball program. I understand the Big 10 is starting to emphasize hockey.
5) In academics, UConn is the #16 public FBS school.
6) In academics, UConn would fit in well per U.S. News:

Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

The only conferences that would legitimately be in the market for UCONN already have at least 14 teams.

IMO, its a monumental step to go "full-retard" and pursue the 16 team "superconference"... That's the only basket that's left for the Huskies.

If realignment happens, it'll be out West, with the PAC is at 12 and the Big12 is at 10. TEXAS sits on the fault line.

I don't believe that BYU will ever be in play for either conference. Their culture just isn't palatable. The PAC doesn't want religious based institutions, and the Big12 brings a HUGE culture divide.

I just don't think Texas is going to split their money any further with the Cincinnati's of the world. They couldn't stomach Louisville, and you think they'll bring in Cincinnati?

IMO, Texas will eventually tire of A&M's SEC advantage, and seek a new neighborhood.

(03-11-2015 07:00 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I just don't think Texas is going to split their money any further with the Cincinnati's of the world. They couldn't stomach Louisville, and you think they'll bring in Cincinnati?

Not just Texas, but also WVU, Oklahoma, TCU, and every other B12 team. They have been quite open and honest about this: they will NOT expand unless a team is available that can pull it's own weight in terms of revenue. And there is NOT a team out there that can do this.

Is this smart? I have no idea. But it is what it is. But some refuse to hear or believe it

(03-11-2015 07:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:00 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I just don't think Texas is going to split their money any further with the Cincinnati's of the world. They couldn't stomach Louisville, and you think they'll bring in Cincinnati?

Not just Texas, but also WVU, Oklahoma, TCU, and every other B12 team. They have been quite open and honest about this: they will NOT expand unless a team is available that can pull it's own weight in terms of revenue. And there is NOT a team out there that can do this.

Is this smart? I have no idea. But it is what it is. But some refuse to hear or believe it

Or if their champ gets the shaft again because they don't have a CCG, then it has to change the equation...

(03-11-2015 08:18 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:12 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 07:00 PM)BigEastHomer Wrote:  I just don't think Texas is going to split their money any further with the Cincinnati's of the world. They couldn't stomach Louisville, and you think they'll bring in Cincinnati?

Not just Texas, but also WVU, Oklahoma, TCU, and every other B12 team. They have been quite open and honest about this: they will NOT expand unless a team is available that can pull it's own weight in terms of revenue. And there is NOT a team out there that can do this.

Is this smart? I have no idea. But it is what it is. But some refuse to hear or believe it

Or if their champ gets the shaft again because they don't have a CCG, then it has to change the equation...

Both of their champs got the shaft this year and all I hear is crickets. It's not about champs. It's not about additions. It's about maintaining options.

(03-11-2015 03:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Marinatto was the last to know when Syracuse and Pitt left for the ACC. He thought things were hunky-dory up until that point.

I miss that guy, he was good for a couple of chuckles, in how he was getting screwed and he didn't realize it until it was too late. Then seeing his reaction, priceless. Guess he somewhere having marinara sauce.

(03-11-2015 08:31 PM)BIgCatonProwl Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 03:12 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  Marinatto was the last to know when Syracuse and Pitt left for the ACC. He thought things were hunky-dory up until that point.

I miss that guy, he was good for a couple of chuckles, in how he was getting screwed and he didn't realize it until it was too late. Then seeing his reaction, priceless. Guess he somewhere having marinara sauce.

(03-11-2015 06:38 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 06:21 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 07:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Why on earth would the B1G want UConn when they already have Rutgers?

I wasn't being serious. But now that you asked ...

1) UConn has basketball (male and female versions). Rutgers does not.
2) UConn adds 10% of the NYC market, which adds to Rutgers' 35% of that market.
3) UConn also has its own top 25 market with (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield).
4) UConn has: a) top level hockey, b) elite soccer, and c) a quality baseball program. I understand the Big 10 is starting to emphasize hockey.
5) In academics, UConn is the #16 public FBS school.
6) In academics, UConn would fit in well per U.S. News:

Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

Not too mention the "35%" NYC market is complete BS. Adding Rutgers already got the B1G pretty much the entire TV market for NYC already, as all of the major carriers carry BTN so the conference reached its goal in NYC already. They would probably like Boston, but there isn't really a good fit as UMass and UConn both don't cover the full DMA and stink at football while BC doesn't really fit as a peer institution.

This is the main reason why UConn (and Kansas) to the B1G is extremely unlikely - the conference isn't looking to expand for the sake of expansion. It is already a huge conference with 14 members, so whomever they add will likely be the last two or four into the conference barring an entire shift of the college athletics landscape (like 4 of the P5 conferences agree to go to 20 school P4). That means that IF the conference expands it would only be for a big fish - a destablizing, politically powerful school in a DMA that the B1G doesn't already cover - Texas, UNC, Duke, FSU, Oklahoma - and of course their seemingly eternal target, ND.

If its not one of those schools, the conference won't be looking.

Roughly 35% of the NYC metro area is New Jersey. No one in NY or CT watches Rutgers football (unless they're Rutgers alums). And if you look at that NY Times college football map, Rutgers doesn't even deliver New Jersey. New Jersey is a mixed bag with Rutgers, Penn State, and ND. At least UConn delivers Connecticut.

UConn has never claimed Boston as their fan base. But the TV market between Boston and NYC is pretty big; it's top 25. That market is all UConn.

I'm not waiting for a call from the Big 10. But to say the Big 10 has nothing to gain by taking UConn because Rutgers "has the Northeast covered" is a joke.

It has absolutely nothing to do with which fans that watch which teams are from where, nor did I say anything about Rutgers covering the northeast or NYC. The fact is that the B1G already got what they wanted by adding Rutgers, which is the BTN in all major carriers in the NYC DMA. Adding UConn doesn't do anything for that, which is why the conference pretty much 99.9% will not be adding UConn.

We don't know the details of any of the carriage contracts. Specifically, we don't know the rate. It is possible that there's room to grow with the addition of UConn.

When looking at NYC, you have to consider that the visiting team is also getting a significant audience. Well, I don't know what "significant" means, but it is a factor. With all the alums in the area, putting Michigan, Ohio State and Penn State in 'local" game more often does have some merit.

There are other places besides NYC and the NYC isn't that great of a college market. There are other States and there are other Brands.

I think the Big 10 is looking at UVA and UNC. There would be dozens of "issues" with that move, but nothing should surprise us anymore.

The Big 10 definitely does not want UConn.

(03-11-2015 08:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 07:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 06:40 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 05:30 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  The Big 12 is not expanding. The next expansion, if it ever happens, will be the Big 10 going to 16 with UConn and Kansas.

Why on earth would the B1G want UConn when they already have Rutgers?

I wasn't being serious. But now that you asked ...

1) UConn has basketball (male and female versions). Rutgers does not.
2) UConn adds 10% of the NYC market, which adds to Rutgers' 35% of that market.
3) UConn also has its own top 25 market with (Hartford/New Haven/Springfield).
4) UConn has: a) top level hockey, b) elite soccer, and c) a quality baseball program. I understand the Big 10 is starting to emphasize hockey.
5) In academics, UConn is the #16 public FBS school.
6) In academics, UConn would fit in well per U.S. News:

Honestly, I don't see any compelling factors here, individually or collectively. B1G basketball is excellent, no need for UConn. B1G already has substantial NYC market penetration. And nobody has ever been added because of hockey, soccer, or baseball.

Academics is nice, but only matters once athletic factors have been considered.

I agree with you about us not being compelling. Looking at it objectively, UConn would blend in very well with the Big 10 schools. Athletically & academically, we would be a good match.

But we won't knock anyone's socks off, like adding Texas would. Or even like getting UVA & UNC together.

(03-12-2015 08:43 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  I think the Big 10 is looking at UVA and UNC. There would be dozens of "issues" with that move, but nothing should surprise us anymore.

There is a very big problem with the idea of The Big Ten ever landing UNC. Sorry, it's extremely unlikely to happen. There are very real roadblocks to that happening.