NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 6:34 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1984 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 18, 2014 7:39 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7398
SI article discussing the addition of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/colleg ... -expansion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:37 am 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 202
This article has a few interesting things about pay-for-play college athletes with a sentence about realignment...

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... nnon-trial

It says "If some did, he said, they likely would be kicked out of the conference because the move would create an imbalance among schools that could not be resolved." That's pretty big words. From what I've heard on this and other sites is that it is private schools that would probably be able to pay their athletes like workers. The list of private schools in the B1G stops at Northwestern. Would they really kick them out? One of the original founders of the conference. If they did, where would Northwestern go? One option is Northwestern may get "Notre Dame fever" and head to the ACC to be with like-minded institutions in fair to large metro areas (Miami, Atlanta, Raleigh, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc. If the ACC wasn't an option, then I could see the XII swooping in for a Northwestern/Cincinnati combo of 2 midwestern schools creating a bridge of sorts to West Virginia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 5:19 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1540
BePcr07 wrote:
This article has a few interesting things about pay-for-play college athletes with a sentence about realignment...

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story ... nnon-trial" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It says "If some did, he said, they likely would be kicked out of the conference because the move would create an imbalance among schools that could not be resolved." That's pretty big words. From what I've heard on this and other sites is that it is private schools that would probably be able to pay their athletes like workers. The list of private schools in the B1G stops at Northwestern. Would they really kick them out? One of the original founders of the conference. If they did, where would Northwestern go? One option is Northwestern may get "Notre Dame fever" and head to the ACC to be with like-minded institutions in fair to large metro areas (Miami, Atlanta, Raleigh, Boston, Pittsburgh, etc. If the ACC wasn't an option, then I could see the XII swooping in for a Northwestern/Cincinnati combo of 2 midwestern schools creating a bridge of sorts to West Virginia.

FBS private schools: Notre Dame, Sou. Cal, Stanford, BYU, TCU, Baylor, Rice, SMU, Tulane, Vanderbilt, Tulsa, Miami (Fl), Wake Forest, Duke, Syracuse, BC, and Northwestern. That's 17 right there. Could be a self-sustaining test conference for paying players. :shock: ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:02 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
Some damage control after Delany's histrionics on the stand? Big Ten college presidents endorse guaranteed four-year scholarships to basketball and football players.

This is also on the heels of the PAC's initiatives on reform. What does "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions" mean, anyway? Especially coming from a conference that enforces this (the intra-conference one, second one down).

We'll see how this goes, but this should be remembered:

Quote:
But this sudden position paper ignores the fact that the Big Ten has long been front and center in the college sports amateurism crusade. Former Penn State president Graham Spanier and former Ohio State president E. Gordon Gee sat on virtually every powerful committee the NCAA has, and thus were part of the establishment that kept a rigid status quo which located all the power (and profit) in the pockets of the schools, their administrators and their coaches, and none in the pockets of the players.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 8:43 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1430
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
What does "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions" mean, anyway?

It basically means that they've finally realized that its not fair to limit a students athletes ability to transfer as harshly as they have been.

This one come to mind as an particularly harsh example, Cole Huff (bball player at Nevada-Reno) wanted to transfer to be closer to home in Southern California but was then...

Quote:
prohibited from transferring to any programs within the Mountain West, Pac-12, West Coast, or to any non-conference team on their 2014-15 schedule — a total of 45 teams.


http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports. ... 5-schools/

That is just extreme. I understand banning kids from transferring to schools within the same conference, upcoming opponents, and 1 maybe 2 OOC rivals...but this is clearly an abose of the system.

Also there has been talk of allowing athletes to transfer and keep all of there eligibility (thus not lose a year as they currently do, unless they have a redshirt) as that has also been brought up in the past.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:25 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
tkalmus wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
What does "liberalize the current rules limiting the ability of student-athletes to transfer between institutions" mean, anyway?

It basically means that they've finally realized that its not fair to limit a students athletes ability to transfer as harshly as they have been.

This one come to mind as an particularly harsh example, Cole Huff (bball player at Nevada-Reno) wanted to transfer to be closer to home in Southern California but was then...

Quote:
prohibited from transferring to any programs within the Mountain West, Pac-12, West Coast, or to any non-conference team on their 2014-15 schedule — a total of 45 teams.


http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcsports. ... 5-schools/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is just extreme. I understand banning kids from transferring to schools within the same conference, upcoming opponents, and 1 maybe 2 OOC rivals...but this is clearly an abose of the system.

Also there has been talk of allowing athletes to transfer and keep all of there eligibility (thus not lose a year as they currently do, unless they have a redshirt) as that has also been brought up in the past.


The PAC created their intra-conference rule, though, and it's not like they struck it down, and I don't think the language they used wants to strike it down. They see it as fair and reasonable. I suspect the B1G, and maybe the PAC if they go the same route, will make it all the more difficult for kids to transfer to a major conference, because now the school is more invested in the student athlete.

I don't get "liberalize" when I think "lessen the restrictions." With that term, I think it to mean "taking more liberties with the system;" the schools/programs get more control, which jives, given they want more autonomy anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 9:40 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7398
Star Tribune article discussing today's official start to Big Ten membership for Rutgers and Maryland at http://www.startribune.com/sports/gophe ... wuRJfIU,97


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 01, 2014 1:15 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
This is another membership announcement, this from the Big Ten's website.

No hinting to any JHU to CIC movement in the release.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:06 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 662
Location: Columbus, OH
I'm just curious as to what you all think about Missouri ever being part of Big Ten expansion plans. Personally, I think the Tigers would prefer the Big Ten if Delany ever gave Columbia a phone call.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:39 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 202
fighting muskie wrote:
I'm just curious as to what you all think about Missouri ever being part of Big Ten expansion plans. Personally, I think the Tigers would prefer the Big Ten if Delany ever gave Columbia a phone call.


A Missouri-Vanderbilt invite seems plausible to me. Keeps it AAU and contiguous while adding the markets of Kansas City, St. Louis, Nashville, and maybe Memphis by extension. There is always the possibility Missouri is happy where they are and feel like they got burned by the B1G. Kind of a reverse situation the SEC has with Florida St and Miami FL. I think Missouri fits in the B1G, but I never saw them as an SEC school. Not really "Southern."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 4:53 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1430
BePcr07 wrote:
fighting muskie wrote:
I'm just curious as to what you all think about Missouri ever being part of Big Ten expansion plans. Personally, I think the Tigers would prefer the Big Ten if Delany ever gave Columbia a phone call.


A Missouri-Vanderbilt invite seems plausible to me. Keeps it AAU and contiguous while adding the markets of Kansas City, St. Louis, Nashville, and maybe Memphis by extension. There is always the possibility Missouri is happy where they are and feel like they got burned by the B1G. Kind of a reverse situation the SEC has with Florida St and Miami FL. I think Missouri fits in the B1G, but I never saw them as an SEC school. Not really "Southern."

They are as "Southern" as Kentucky is and more so in many way.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 7:59 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
At this point, when I hear the Big Ten talking about wanting to be in southeastern states, I tune out the ACC schools because of Maryland, even GT, and go straight to Missouri and Vanderbilt. Missouri's doable. I don't feel the same about Vanderbilt, although, operationally, maybe that changes and their administrators and other stakeholders feel like they've done their share for that conference. Would Houston count as southeast? Because if/when Texas joins the PAC, the Big Ten will want to be in Texas...and maybe that's Rice's chance, albeit the only and very small one.

I wish the Big Ten would kickstart more toward the west and take AFA's lacrosse program. One wonders if that's an operational no-no because of the PAC's holdings in the state?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:40 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1540
There are some assumptions pertaining to the matter of Missouri's conference transition that suggest a false pattern of what really happened. And attempting to not look at this exclusively from a SEC favored perspective; but suggest that from a B1G favored perspective, there's certainly a distinction between what may be wished for, and what is the reality of the situation.

1. When the B1G announced their intent to expand a few years back, the B1G indicated there could be multiple teams added. At that time, the SEC had not declared they were expanding. The SEC public statements, at that time, expressed the SEC was not expanding. Of course, the SEC was talking to certain schools as they and other conferences commonly do.

2. There was no coupling, similar timing, of announcements by the B1G and the SEC. Thus, in terms of major options, when Missouri was openly lobbying for a B1G invite, there was no SEC invitation on the table for Missouri. Therefore, from Missouri's situation at the time, it was NOT a situation of Missouri having two choices of which the B1G was #1, and the SEC was #2 as a fallback. That does not suggest that the B1G was not the top choice among Missouri's decision-makers, but it was not part of an option other than Missouri remaining in the B12.

3. Revelations came out that Missouri's discussions with the SEC were NOT limited to the immediate time period after the SEC's acquisition of Texas A&M, or the SEC's basic consideration of Missouri only began in the few short months prior to the Missouri signing with the SEC. What that means, is that the SEC had a measure of Missouri's interest and compatibility level, and had Missouri formulated into an equation of "if x, y, z, happened, then we can do plan c".

4. Missouri's discussions with the B1G had gone on for years before the B1G acquired Nebraska, whose flirtations with the B1G were also long-term. And an often overlooked fact, is that Missouri had long-term discussions with the SEC as mentioned--but also it was not an uncommon scenario presented previously by some credible media pundits. Discussions are not promises, but interests were advanced. The B1G absolutely knew when they added Nebraska that Missouri had also been talking to the SEC. That can not be called a deference to the SEC. The B1G and Missouri both knew the SEC had an interest in the State of Texas, particular regarding Texas A&M's obvious attractiveness to the SEC. As to Nebraska, could the B1G have had a fear that Nebraska could have resolved their differences with the B12 and have become less of a B1G option if the Nebraska was not immediately taken first once the B1G declared they were exploring expanding? Was Missouri erroneously thought of as an option that would always be there, and thus the B1G decided to move on Nebraska first as part of the equation? Could the B1G have gambled and lost that Missouri would not be accepted later by the SEC and/or that staying in the B12 was only Missouri's other real option? Odd, since Missouri's then Governor and some others were dissing some B12 schools at the time.

5. If the B1G had Missouri on the back-burner as a possibility and missed the opportunity, that's Delany's and the B1G's miscalculation. If Missouri was promised but was told to wait by the B1G, obviously those were not terms Missouri was willing to accept in the event the SEC became receptive. Maybe Rutgers, and even Maryland, were maidens in waiting for the B1G, but it certainly didn't apply to Missouri.

6. The PAC added, the ACC expanded, the B1G added, the B12 was in a moment of disarray. Texas A&M got added to the SEC amongst the changes. Missouri was already on the SEC possibilities list, and emerged as the choice for #14. Obviously possibilities with a couple of other schools in the B12 were pondered as perhaps one or two from the east (ACC). Whatever, timing and circumstances, led to Missouri joining the SEC. I seriously doubt Missouri's arrangement with the SEC was enacted to be a temporary relationship until Delany phoned again. Slive is no fool, and there would have been direct discussions about commitment with Missouri's brass on this matter. If Missouri was waffling, that would have been a no-go. The several weeks of delay in Missouri signing-up officially, had much to do with getting a comprehensive commitment from Missouri, not just a technical one. That included all of Missouri's prime constituencies. Though the SEC has no G0R, each
SEC member is a signed entity to commitment contracts involving internal and external revenue and Missouri would have been fully briefed on the terms involving each.

7. As Tkalmus indicated, Missouri's geography to the SEC is not extreme. It is contiguous by three states, though two of them are short borders. And having AAU membership is not a B1G entitlement for priority choices unto themselves, nor a requirement of a given school to join the B1G if the B1G seeks them, i. e. UVA and UNC. The point, AAU affiliation is not a sole driving favor among the dynamics operating.

One cannot predict where all schools shall be in the future given the trends about super-divisions, player's compensation, scheduling alliances, etc. But Missouri is not going anywhere else, at least anytime soon, and would hinge on major upheaval. That's not to imply Missouri would not be a fine B1G fit, perhaps better for them than the SEC in terms of what specific features are valued more than others. Even if some sources at Missouri would want to entertain further movement, they also know they are in a darn good situation in the SEC. Missouri also does not want the stigma of conference hopping and go through the turmoil of another selling job and burning more bridges on a big-time level. Missouri is also ingrained in the SEC long enough that resistance to another transition, particularly from fans and major boosters, could be formidable and highly controversial. They are not Maryland, who did not escape the internal strains themselves, let alone, the external ones. And all this would would be contingent on a passion to move which presently lacks evidence.


Last edited by sec03 on Fri Jul 11, 2014 3:15 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 2:55 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
Right, these decisions happen over years, not days or a few weeks. Missouri was well in their right mind to talk to everyone, as that's proper due diligence. I'd suspect they were just like every Big 8 school in the late 80's and early 90's who, when the Big XII formation was not a forgone conclusion, started making and taking phone calls. We know they were potentially targeted in the 90's by the B1G, but with others hinging on accepting. I have no doubt that once Arkansas got their SEC spot, the wheels in Missouri's mind began to spin, and if Arky fit the SEC, so could Missouri. But, where the Tigers may have really wanted to go...and that's why I don't discount their potential future Big Ten membership.

Mind you, at this point, I would be disappointed if Missouri left the SEC for the B1G in anything less than a good couple of decades if nothing really changes. If the Big Ten put Rutgers ahead of Missouri, I'd tell the Big Ten to shove it. If the Big Ten grew cool to schools like Missouri because they weren't exclusively making the Big Ten their target, I'd hope (and wish) Missouri leadership would expose the Big Ten for that kind of carelessness and hubris.

Let the Big Ten live with the mistake of its small-mindedness by stiff-arming a Pitt or Missouri for the likes of Rutgers, or maybe even Maryland if they start to drown. Rutgers probably won't be making bowl money for the conference, nor getting tournament credits. Both Pitt and Missouri would. Content-driven expansion usually gets that benefit.

And I think the Big Ten did make a mistake with their last four acquisitions. Nebraska's a tough academic sell, Rutgers and Maryland are bleeders, and Johns Hopkins, the research king, continues to stiff the CIC, which makes that consortium, and its collective of schools, look weak.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:06 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 391
Rutgers is going no where fast under the leadership of Kyle Flood.
Until Rutgers pays for a big time hc they going no where fast


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1984 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
 

 

cron




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