NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Sat Oct 25, 2014 7:18 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2015 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 135  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:44 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:47 pm
Posts: 252
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I stand by "dampen," because any fraction off that $50m is far more doable. TCU, Pitt, 'Cuse...if they could weasel out of some of that dough, no reason it can't elsewhere.

And when does that amount go into effect? If ND's a part of that, I suspect it would be when they enter the conference. So...door's open.

I believe the B1G isn't the type to pony up money for a school, because it would be perceived as weak or desperate, but it's not fully off the table, either.


I see the Big Ten only targeting and/or offering a current ACC school if and only IF that schools expresses extreme dissatisfaction with the conference (i.e. Nebraska leaving the Big 12). Then and only then would they try to poach Virginia, Maryland, Boston College, etc...

It is far more logical and, perhaps, realistic for the Big Ten to target UConn and Rutgers. I would assume they would want those two universities regardless due to the academic prestige and access to the NYC market. By inviting those two universities, football divisions could be easily altered by just moving UConn and Rutgers into the Leaders divisions while Illinois is moved into the Legends.

Leaders: Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, UConn, Rutgers
Legends: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State, Michigan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:48 pm 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
diabsoule wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I stand by "dampen," because any fraction off that $50m is far more doable. TCU, Pitt, 'Cuse...if they could weasel out of some of that dough, no reason it can't elsewhere.

And when does that amount go into effect? If ND's a part of that, I suspect it would be when they enter the conference. So...door's open.

I believe the B1G isn't the type to pony up money for a school, because it would be perceived as weak or desperate, but it's not fully off the table, either.


I see the Big Ten only targeting and/or offering a current ACC school if and only IF that schools expresses extreme dissatisfaction with the conference (i.e. Nebraska leaving the Big 12). Then and only then would they try to poach Virginia, Maryland, Boston College, etc...

It is far more logical and, perhaps, realistic for the Big Ten to target UConn and Rutgers. I would assume they would want those two universities regardless due to the academic prestige and access to the NYC market. By inviting those two universities, football divisions could be easily altered by just moving UConn and Rutgers into the Leaders divisions while Illinois is moved into the Legends.

Leaders: Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, UConn, Rutgers
Legends: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State, Michigan


Again, folks, $50 million is a whole lotta drachma. Virginia, Maryland, Boston College could all be "dissatisfied" with the ACC but guess what..none are gonna pony up $50 million to leave. We're not talking $5 million or even $10 million that a big gun might be able to afford. We're talking $50 million.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 12, 2012 8:01 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:47 pm
Posts: 252
Quinn wrote:
diabsoule wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I stand by "dampen," because any fraction off that $50m is far more doable. TCU, Pitt, 'Cuse...if they could weasel out of some of that dough, no reason it can't elsewhere.

And when does that amount go into effect? If ND's a part of that, I suspect it would be when they enter the conference. So...door's open.

I believe the B1G isn't the type to pony up money for a school, because it would be perceived as weak or desperate, but it's not fully off the table, either.


I see the Big Ten only targeting and/or offering a current ACC school if and only IF that schools expresses extreme dissatisfaction with the conference (i.e. Nebraska leaving the Big 12). Then and only then would they try to poach Virginia, Maryland, Boston College, etc...

It is far more logical and, perhaps, realistic for the Big Ten to target UConn and Rutgers. I would assume they would want those two universities regardless due to the academic prestige and access to the NYC market. By inviting those two universities, football divisions could be easily altered by just moving UConn and Rutgers into the Leaders divisions while Illinois is moved into the Legends.

Leaders: Wisconsin, Purdue, Indiana, Ohio State, Penn State, UConn, Rutgers
Legends: Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Northwestern, Michigan State, Michigan


Again, folks, $50 million is a whole lotta drachma. Virginia, Maryland, Boston College could all be "dissatisfied" with the ACC but guess what..none are gonna pony up $50 million to leave. We're not talking $5 million or even $10 million that a big gun might be able to afford. We're talking $50 million.


Agreed. $50 million is an intimidating amount to even consider sniping a team from the ACC. I think that alone makes that conference stable for the foreseeable future.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 13, 2012 6:54 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1128
Yeah, it is a lot of money. But it's also the institutional prestige and income generation of being in the Big Ten. And don't rule out affluent donors.

The sick thing is, while it's a lot, to some people, it's only money...

...and maybe with Maryland voting no, you have an opening for negotiating that amount?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:07 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
Much of the media is thrilled over the ND association with the ACC. However, some are looking at the details and implications and note ND got most all it wanted in the deal.

Coupled with some of the elated comments, are views that the ACC has essentially wrapped up all the upper mid-atlantic and northeast markets.

Does the B1G make a play for Rutgers or even UCONN? Does the B12, already with WVU, challenge the ACC with further expansion heading in a northeast direction?

The B1G has enough power and prestige to compromise the ACC thrust by further expansion.

The B12 is essentially going to be viewed as north-south middle America with Texas as the base.

Both the B1G and B12 would want power fb programs to add along with other criteria that match. Would desired venues with high population density in the NE be enough to compromise on taking a school(s) having an overall mediocre fb history even if the "academics" may be acceptable?

If the trend is to have 5 true mega-conferences of a total of 80-something schools overall, does a conference with a real opportunity to further expand and secure new markets largely concede a domain they could partially claim in the competition war for telecasting and recruiting grounds?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:38 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1128
I think the B1G will ultimately absorb Rutgers, but enough of the conditions must be met. First, Rutgers has to clear out from the Big East in the most formal way possible, without ANY litigation that may cause damage to the Big Ten. In other words, "due diligence" is not something the Big Ten must do, but wholly and solely Rutgers. Rutgers will have to withdraw from the Big East without any Big Ten assistance. That's going for how much these days?

The real stumbling block may be if Rutgers can accept the amount of time without getting much conference revenue, be it no share or a partial one, from either the Big Ten in its opening years and the closing ones in the Big East. This school already has an infamous bunch of malcontents who hate the athletic culture at the school; the state that funds it is strapped. Rutgers may hit paydirt...a few years AFTER they are fully within Big Ten contracts. Can Rutgers' sports survive until then? Will the people of NJ let it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 10:40 am 
Online
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think the B1G will ultimately absorb Rutgers, but enough of the conditions must be met. First, Rutgers has to clear out from the Big East in the most formal way possible, without ANY litigation that may cause damage to the Big Ten. In other words, "due diligence" is not something the Big Ten must do, but wholly and solely Rutgers. Rutgers will have to withdraw from the Big East without any Big Ten assistance. That's going for how much these days?

The real stumbling block may be if Rutgers can accept the amount of time without getting much conference revenue, be it no share or a partial one, from either the Big Ten in its opening years and the closing ones in the Big East. This school already has an infamous bunch of malcontents who hate the athletic culture at the school; the state that funds it is strapped. Rutgers may hit paydirt...a few years AFTER they are fully within Big Ten contracts. Can Rutgers' sports survive until then? Will the people of NJ let it?


Why? No other schools have such a assurances when they move. Texas A&M was getting invited to the SEC but legally made moves to help the SEC. But they were getting an invitation, they wouldn't have left the Big 12 if they weren't assured that.

_________________
Image

Image@ncaasports Image csi.com/facebook

Image
Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:09 am 
Offline
Junior
Junior

Joined: Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:41 am
Posts: 118
Location: Chicago, IL
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think the B1G will ultimately absorb Rutgers, but enough of the conditions must be met. First, Rutgers has to clear out from the Big East in the most formal way possible, without ANY litigation that may cause damage to the Big Ten. In other words, "due diligence" is not something the Big Ten must do, but wholly and solely Rutgers. Rutgers will have to withdraw from the Big East without any Big Ten assistance. That's going for how much these days?

The real stumbling block may be if Rutgers can accept the amount of time without getting much conference revenue, be it no share or a partial one, from either the Big Ten in its opening years and the closing ones in the Big East. This school already has an infamous bunch of malcontents who hate the athletic culture at the school; the state that funds it is strapped. Rutgers may hit paydirt...a few years AFTER they are fully within Big Ten contracts. Can Rutgers' sports survive until then? Will the people of NJ let it?


I think Rutgers would hope the Committee on Institutional Cooperation in the Big Ten would pacify the academics who hate the athletic culture. Not a guarantee to diffuse the situation but it is something that could be pointed to as what the academics get out of the deal.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 11:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
Good points.
Intercollegiate fb started at Rutgers with playing Princetown. Rutgers is an AAU member, the flag-ship school of a densely populated state, and close to NYC and Philadelphia. If the athletic dimension was not looked at so deeply in terms of substained successes, but in terms of offerings, along with the other factors, who would not want Rutgers in seeking an enhanced eastern footprint?
The ACC passed on Rutgers with their expansions during the last decade. However, the ACC was essentially force to take VPI which is a state school, and the rest were all private and state-related Pitt. Other than Miami at the time, it looked like the ACC was expanding for bb.
The ACC has shown a fondness for smaller private institutions, largely due to already having Wake and Duke and in keeping with "academic" imagery.

The ACC also passed on WVU, who showed leading fb & strong bb in the BE. Of course, the ACC implied WVU did not meet the academic profile they were seeking (it may also have been they didn't want another VPI that would come in and also dominate in fb).

Then, it was heard, that most in the ACC had really preferred UCONN over Pitt when Syracuse was added, but BC voiced too much discontent over trying to add UCONN. Then it was heard, that if the ACC goes to 16, UCONN and Rutgers would be the prime candidates. Next, Notre Dame was sending signals to the ACC; so if the ACC did expand again, which they have with the agreement with ND, then UCONN could be #16. Of course, others have wildly speculated about Vanderbilt, while generally naming Rutgers after someone else in terms of priority.

I did not believe this last year or before, but for #13 and #14, if the B1G ever decided to make a play on the east coast or felt compelled to expand due to TV ventures, Maryland and Rutgers would be prime candidates. Maryland didn't vote for the big, new ACC exit fee along with FSU.

The B1G in having the cluster of Penn State, Maryland, and Rutgers in the east, would be a deep cut in the region from DC/Baltimore to the NYC area and thus westward to connect with the rest of the B1G. The point, Rutgers alone may not be enough to be attractive to the B1G. But as part of a design with another desirable region (east) school, it could look plausible.

That big exit fee the ACC imposed could well have been aimed at discouraging the above scenario from happening. I don't think the new fee was just all about Notre Dame or keeping FSU from having wandering eyes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1128
Quinn wrote:
Why? No other schools have such a assurances when they move. Texas A&M was getting invited to the SEC but legally made moves to help the SEC. But they were getting an invitation, they wouldn't have left the Big 12 if they weren't assured that.


All that is to say that I believe any conversations about Big Ten membership between the conference and Rutgers will demand of Rutgers to fully commit to an action plan of withdrawing, applying, accepting, and entering within a fixed timeframe. The difference in the Big XII and Big East defections were that they were largely open-ended. They were joining the SEC, ACC, and Big XII; they just didn't say when. And they couldn't say when because they didn't formally make all of the necessary arrangements to make for a "smooth," clean transition.

The Big Ten is going to make Rutgers do that, as they made Penn State and Nebraska.

hickory_cornhusker wrote:
I think Rutgers would hope the Committee on Institutional Cooperation in the Big Ten would pacify the academics who hate the athletic culture. Not a guarantee to diffuse the situation but it is something that could be pointed to as what the academics get out of the deal.


The Rutgers 1000 were a nasty, irrational, and elitist bunch that thought even the original Big East it joined was not fit academically. Many of them are gone, and while I agree that the CIC will weigh on the minds of many there about its vast research benefits working in such a collective, the aforementioned price tag of what it will cost Rutgers in the short-term to get to that point could be easily criticized by many within the institution and government.

sec03 wrote:
That big exit fee the ACC imposed could well have been aimed at discouraging the above scenario from happening. I don't think the new fee was just all about Notre Dame or keeping FSU from having wandering eyes.


You can read it all sorts of ways. FSU? Clemson? VT? Those are the most obvious after the last round of speculation. I honestly didn't expect UMD to vote against it, as I thought this new arrangement favored the Terps greatly. That they did...does it mean something?

The other schools that come to mind: BC and Pitt. I'm not saying Pitt's getting that Big Ten call finally, but were they...it's going to cost them. For BC, I think this amount could mean them having to swallow the big chill pill that is a future potential UConn membership.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1568
Quinn wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think the B1G will ultimately absorb Rutgers, but enough of the conditions must be met. First, Rutgers has to clear out from the Big East in the most formal way possible, without ANY litigation that may cause damage to the Big Ten. In other words, "due diligence" is not something the Big Ten must do, but wholly and solely Rutgers. Rutgers will have to withdraw from the Big East without any Big Ten assistance. That's going for how much these days?

The real stumbling block may be if Rutgers can accept the amount of time without getting much conference revenue, be it no share or a partial one, from either the Big Ten in its opening years and the closing ones in the Big East. This school already has an infamous bunch of malcontents who hate the athletic culture at the school; the state that funds it is strapped. Rutgers may hit paydirt...a few years AFTER they are fully within Big Ten contracts. Can Rutgers' sports survive until then? Will the people of NJ let it?


Why? No other schools have such a assurances when they move. Texas A&M was getting invited to the SEC but legally made moves to help the SEC. But they were getting an invitation, they wouldn't have left the Big 12 if they weren't assured that.


Quinn, not to suggest a conspiracy theory, but this may make sense. Since Texas A&M and Mizzou made the transitions to the SEC with relatively ease, beyond institutional factors; in exchange to quell any larger complications from the B12, the SEC was at the time, secretly of course, working out the blueprints for the new Champions Bowl that was announced not long after?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:59 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:41 pm
Posts: 238
East:

Ohio St, Wisconsin, Penn St, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers, UConn

West:

Michigan, Michigan St, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, Minn

_________________
SOUTH CAROLINA GAMECOCKS - SEC
RUTGERS SCARLET KNIGHTS
- BIG EAST / AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE / BIG TEN


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Sep 27, 2012 10:33 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1128
sec03 wrote:
Quinn wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I think the B1G will ultimately absorb Rutgers, but enough of the conditions must be met. First, Rutgers has to clear out from the Big East in the most formal way possible, without ANY litigation that may cause damage to the Big Ten. In other words, "due diligence" is not something the Big Ten must do, but wholly and solely Rutgers. Rutgers will have to withdraw from the Big East without any Big Ten assistance. That's going for how much these days?

The real stumbling block may be if Rutgers can accept the amount of time without getting much conference revenue, be it no share or a partial one, from either the Big Ten in its opening years and the closing ones in the Big East. This school already has an infamous bunch of malcontents who hate the athletic culture at the school; the state that funds it is strapped. Rutgers may hit paydirt...a few years AFTER they are fully within Big Ten contracts. Can Rutgers' sports survive until then? Will the people of NJ let it?


Why? No other schools have such a assurances when they move. Texas A&M was getting invited to the SEC but legally made moves to help the SEC. But they were getting an invitation, they wouldn't have left the Big 12 if they weren't assured that.


Quinn, not to suggest a conspiracy theory, but this may make sense. Since Texas A&M and Mizzou made the transitions to the SEC with relatively ease, beyond institutional factors; in exchange to quell any larger complications from the B12, the SEC was at the time, secretly of course, working out the blueprints for the new Champions Bowl that was announced not long after?


No zany hidden agendas implied...just good, clean public relations. The Big Ten would expect any new member to commit to a specific time. None of this "We're joining the B1G!!! Details TBD!!!" That's been the Big Ten never.

The only hidden agenda speak I believe is the type that considers Rutgers the linchpin to the Big East remaining a conference. Without the large NYC-area public university, you lose virtually most of the value to the entire product. Football and basketball won't lose much by way of any real quality, but it loses its "major market" tent-pole. It's here where I believe the Big East would sue, sue, sue. Sue Rutgers on some procedural issue regarding withdrawal, sue the Big Ten (or any conference inviting RU) for tampering, and suing networks associated with the poaching conference for potential tampering. They could even go after the state of New Jersey to force Rutgers to open their books.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Sep 28, 2012 1:16 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1128
Ohio State has no satisMACtion. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Every time I want to support the Big Ten, one of their own go out of their way to be douchebags and rag on those who do good things with what they have and discredit them by basically misrepresenting them (ala TCU's "Little Sisters of the Poor"). In college basketball, the Big Ten dodges the Missouri Valley and MAC, and now in football, just as the MAC starts to catch up and eclipse other non-BCS conferences by getting the better of schools in the Big Ten and Big East, here comes Ohio State saying that MAC teams hurt their image.

...but apparently C-USA ones who don't even have any wins don't, or that others in the Big Ten schedule 1-AA fare. Nope, nothing wrong with that!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 6:17 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2002 5:14 pm
Posts: 2694
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Could this be what the Missouri AD was referring to with more change in a couple years. We now have the Wisconsin AD wanting a super conference of SEC, Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac 12.

http://www.journalstandard.com/sports/x ... per-league


Could we be heading for a Super 48? Hey Florida State better get those high paying donors start creating a 50 million dollar exit fund strategy?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2015 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 ... 135  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: robconstant and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group