NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Thu Nov 27, 2014 10:01 pm

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2041 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 ... 137  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 9:37 am 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 754
Location: Columbus, OH
Personally, I would have much rather seen schools like Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse than Rutgers and Maryland.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 12:32 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 407
ctx48c wrote:
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

Rutgers certainly has had several incidents of unflattering publicity over the last few years that also included controversies beyond athletics. Maybe it's just a Jersey thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 1:15 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1044
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
fighting muskie wrote:
Personally, I would have much rather seen schools like Missouri, Pitt, and Syracuse than Rutgers and Maryland.


I agree. The B1G would have 15 members (Mizzou, Syracuse & Pittsburgh) instead of 14 (Rutgers & Maryland); plus it needed one more to have 16 (whether Iowa St., Kansas, Kansas St., or West Virginia). While the ACC would still gain 2 more (possibly Rutgers & Louisville), and keeping Maryland as well; while looking for 2 more members to have 16 (whether a pair of either of these: Cincy, UConn, West Virginia, Notre Dame). Then conference realignment would take a different perspective.

But realistically; it should had happened ONLY if it was during the 2010-11 season way before of the following:

* Mizzou chose to go to the SEC (late 2011)
* Pitt & Syracuse to go to the ACC (late 2011/early 2012)
* Maryland & Rutgers chose to go to the B1G (late 2012)
* Texas A&M chose to go to the SEC (would still go with another Texas school)

Unfortunately it never did.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:41 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1152
louisvillecard01 wrote:
ctx48c wrote:
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

Rutgers certainly has had several incidents of unflattering publicity over the last few years that also included controversies beyond athletics. Maybe it's just a Jersey thing.


I think it's an old snob school turned big statey with too much residual tradition and philosophy running through it. These guys used to mess around with Patriot League and Ivy League schools in gridiron...not even 35 years ago, and it used to be a private school, and, as some will want to project, still has some autonomy outside of Trentonian politics.

They had enough of a base to become heavily research-oriented. They got AAU distinction 25 years ago. They're closing in on the merge with UMDNJ, so they get their comprehensive medical operation like so many other Big Ten schools. They improved their facilities. They started playing the big boys in football, committing to the Big East, but also keeping the Penn State track in mind (even turning down the Big East's first offer to stick with PSU). The school's always had potential. It's not TCNJ or TCoW&M, or its bigger equivalencies, like UVA, Cal, or Michigan, but it's not far from them, either.

But, yeah, I question how they do their thing there. Like, Hoffa-style. It's a pretty blue state with deep history in union-oriented operations, and it's a good state for education. That's what makes the vetting of people like Hermann, Jordan, and even the residual effects of the crisis that generated those gaffes, the even bigger one, including how that president (Barchi) still has his job; it's troubling.

People call Penn State a cult. Rutgers is literally going insane over this Big Ten ramp-up thing, and there's no guarantee it makes the university more sufficient, efficient, successful, honorable, elite, or even competitive. Or profitable. It's all hype and 'spec. But they don't care over there. And they should...because they're the ones likely cutting the checks for an operation that isn't run very well. Heck, the Big Ten still isn't enough for some of those folks even within the school. The Rutgers 1000? Here comes the new gang.

But, Rutgers is "friggin' huge" (over 60K total enrollment), and is academically competent...more reputable than Missouri, but not quite Pitt, though over twice its size. I get why they look good on paper...I just wish they'd have been vetted better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 11:58 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I get why they look good on paper...I just wish they'd have been vetted better.

There were some revelations that resulted after the B1G committed to adding Rutgers. The public relations going into the B1G for Rutgers got a bit cloudy given some of the controversies that happened along that timeline.
When Pitt and Syracuse were announced that they would be joining the ACC, I remember posting on this board shortly afterwards an article concerning the administration at Rutgers telling their upset fans 'that Rutgers shall be fine'. Rutgers knew then that a future B1G invite was in the works.
I believe the B1G was aware of Rutgers' prior baggage (all schools have some baggage one way or another), but as indicated, chose to focus on what looked good and what they saw as potential. The B1G's leadership messages about Rutgers emphasizes 'the future'. It is somewhat of a gamble. If Rutgers fails to step-it-up, or keep pace, Rutgers will not be fulfilling the expectations of the B1G's eastern initiative. In fairness to Rutgers, that's a tall order whereby their sport's history suggests certain limitations in what they may be able to deliver on a bigger time level. In this regard, similar perspectives could be conveyed about Maryland, though not as intense. At the minimum, the B1G wants those broadcasting networks to have signed contracts as carriers of B1G sports on basic coverage throughout the northeastern USA. The B1G is pretty much getting that from the moves they've made. The real measure will be actual viewership and on-site attendance figures. Of all the B1G schools, I think Penn State may be in the best position to take advantage of all this.
Here is an article from The Columbus Dispatch that includes the B1G line about having expanded with Rutgers (Todd Jones, 7/13/2014):
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content ... uture.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 1:51 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1152
sec03 wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
I get why they look good on paper...I just wish they'd have been vetted better.

There were some revelations that resulted after the B1G committed to adding Rutgers. The public relations going into the B1G for Rutgers got a bit cloudy given some of the controversies that happened along that timeline.
When Pitt and Syracuse were announced that they would be joining the ACC, I remember posting on this board shortly afterwards an article concerning the administration at Rutgers telling their upset fans 'that Rutgers shall be fine'. Rutgers knew then that a future B1G invite was in the works.
I believe the B1G was aware of Rutgers' prior baggage (all schools have some baggage one way or another), but as indicated, chose to focus on what looked good and what they saw as potential. The B1G's leadership messages about Rutgers emphasizes 'the future'. It is somewhat of a gamble. If Rutgers fails to step-it-up, or keep pace, Rutgers will not be fulfilling the expectations of the B1G's eastern initiative. In fairness to Rutgers, that's a tall order whereby their sport's history suggests certain limitations in what they may be able to deliver on a bigger time level. In this regard, similar perspectives could be conveyed about Maryland, though not as intense. At the minimum, the B1G wants those broadcasting networks to have signed contracts as carriers of B1G sports on basic coverage throughout the northeastern USA. The B1G is pretty much getting that from the moves they've made. The real measure will be actual viewership and on-site attendance figures. Of all the B1G schools, I think Penn State may be in the best position to take advantage of all this.
Here is an article from The Columbus Dispatch that includes the B1G line about having expanded with Rutgers (Todd Jones, 7/13/2014):
http://buckeyextra.dispatch.com/content ... uture.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


It was a bit of a tell when the "don't worry" bit came out. It was suspected (though I don't know if ever fully confirmed) that Rutgers really started pursuing the "Big Ten track" right after/during the Penn State courtship. Like, sent the Big Ten offices a flashy video and all of these statistics on media worth/potential, travel proximity (far better than what University Park had/has going for it), and its academic traditions. The work on the football and basketball venues, though not the programs themselves per se, were rumored to be Big Ten-driven or mandated.

I don't know if they applied to the ACC after the Pitt/Syracuse panic. I don't know if its ever been confirmed who applied right after, other than UConn, WVU, Louisville, Cincinnati, USF, and maybe some of the hoops schools (VU rumored, and I don't know who else). It would be EXTREMELY hypocritical if Rutgers did apply, was turned down, and kept the door open for the Big Ten, as it may be that Missouri was looked upon less than favorably for its work with other suitors. I don't know.

But Rutgers...it's the name I've heard circling around the Big Ten membership rumor circles for a very long time. Even before I really started snooping out message boards and other stories, I remember hearing them come up from other people here and there. Just after Nebraska, even, that the very next target was Notre Dame, and ND's companion was nobody else but Rutgers. I was floored how absolute people projected it. And, while it's no Notre Dame, all it did take was Maryland, and Rutgers was instantly added for #14 (though they could have been #12 or #13 given how long they were in the queue waiting). The NJ governor, just a few months prior to the announcement, did his own campaigning for the school, justifying the "massive" spending on sports (which is nothing compared to the other Big Ten schools) as its own recruiting device. I think he knew it was coming.

The spending concerns are legitimate, though. To get to Big Ten levels, even closer to the respectable ones on the low end, Rutgers is looking to put down at least $10-15m to get it more up to speed. Where is that money coming from, if their buy-in isn't front-loaded, or there isn't a travel subsidy? There's no guarantee the UMDNJ merger is even going to work (the faculty are against it, which isn't a good sign, with or without Big Ten distinction potentially assisting academic recruitment and enrollment), and the price tag on that is going to be hefty. It seems like part of the bill is already falling on the very fans who kept Rutgers an attractive candidate: season ticket prices skyrocketed, as did parking, as well as a lot of downgrades for people who've been in the system for years.

Rutgers has done a lot of work to make itself more attractive, and while it's somewhat commendable, they're still not there. They're years away, and by that I mean at least a decade still. I know their landscape had changed, and I'm sure the Big Ten would have made them wait if there were other, better programs looking to get into the conference (I doubt Rutgers would have gotten their spot if UNC, UVA, GT, Texas, or Notre Dame were all willing and able; you don't make those guys wait for the likes of Rutgers).

But...I'm a merit guy. That's why I've got such a bur under my saddle for some of this expansion stuff. Rutgers, UCF (or any directional FL school, for that matter), the stiffing of ECU for so long, SMU over Memphis...wth?! You got the likes of Rutgers, TCU, Utah, and Louisville all floating around as majors, and I'm not sure they deserve to be there, and that the line should be clearly drawn at this mark and let the rest rot on the vine or sit in their appropriate level (like Pitt in the ACC when they are B1G-worthy, or Utah and Rutgers as PAC and B1G institutions). It's puzzling.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:29 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Some of the Notre Dame promoters have been declaring the B1G expanded with Rutgers and Maryland because the B1G was unable to land Notre Dame. Here's an example of this train of thought from last month:
http://irish.nbcsports.com/2014/06/19/n ... y-the-day/

It's a sense of entitlement gone into overdrive.

It's not surprising a NBC sports blog would say such. But the message extends beyond the question of full-sports conference affiliation, to leaving the strong suggestion that Notre Dame canceling/reducing games with UM, MSU, and PU, were good moves for Notre Dame. No fretting for Notre Dame, schools like Georgia and Texas shall eagerly take up any slack. And Notre Dame tells the ACC, not the other way around, on what dates they shall play their 5 rotating ACC opponents.

Frankly, it would be in the best interest of the B1G to further distance themselves from Notre Dame. All the major conferences have accommodated Notre Dame's agenda in varying ways. Even Slive did the Smothers Brothers act with Swarbrick over the playoff-offs set-up. The ACC's accommodation of Notre Dame has largely cost them a comprehensive fb scheduling agreement with the SEC. It cost the B1G having one with the PAC12. Notre Dame has been good at playing one against the other. How they operated with the old Big East is the classic indicator.

The B1G has detractors that claim the conference is in decline and Notre Dame enthusiasts are more than willing to embrace that thought to enhance their own objectives and goals.

Some of the SEC schools are struggling to find OOC power five opponents per the new requirement. Take Mississippi State for example, just in the last several weeks they added Kansas State for 2018-19, NC State for 2020-21, and Arizona for 2022-23. That's a B12, an ACC, and a PAC12 school scheduled. No B1G there. Mississippi State, if scheduling allowed, could just as easily matched-up with Indiana, Purdue, Illinois, Minnesota, etc.

If the B1G wants a southern strategy themselves, then engage them more and build from some of those New Year's Day bowl agreements. They tend to be fairly lucrative. Of course it's a two-way street. And there are several future games already scheduled between B1G and SEC schools: Mizzou-Indiana (2014); Wisconsin-LSU (2014); Wisconsin-Alabama (2015); Purdue-Mizzou (2017 and 2018); Florida-Michigan (2017 in Arlington, TX); Michigan-Arkansas (2018-2019); Penn State-LSU (2020 neutral site); Tennessee-Nebraska (2026-2027). OK, my bad---a little, at least Michigan and Wisconsin gets it. But the B1G and SEC have a long border, and maybe more could be expected. And to date, SEC scheduling with the B1G is certainly not particularly distinguishable from the pattern they have scheduled with B12 and PAC12 schools. Naturally, the ACC is going to show more frequently on SEC schedules due to in-state rivalries-plus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 16, 2014 8:18 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1152
sec03 wrote:
Frankly, it would be in the best interest of the B1G to further distance themselves from Notre Dame. All the major conferences have accommodated Notre Dame's agenda in varying ways. Even Slive did the Smothers Brothers act with Swarbrick over the playoff-offs set-up. The ACC's accommodation of Notre Dame has largely cost them a comprehensive fb scheduling agreement with the SEC. It cost the B1G having one with the PAC12. Notre Dame has been good at playing one against the other. How they operated with the old Big East is the classic indicator.


It should be pretty interesting if the NCAA gives the ACC what it wants in CCG autonomy and Notre Dame still decides it wants what it has (independence, control of the dates, the bowl tie-ins, etc.). I suspect that Notre Dame could still do that...nothing would shock me with them at this point.

I definitely agree about the distance thing...you're a midwestern conference, and your midwestern heavyweights are the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, and Nebraska. If Notre Dame is going to shy away from those, or force them to play on their terms (the "2 for 1" Shamrock Series thing), they're not a midwestern heavyweight themselves. They're a midwestern program who isolated themselves because of their bad sense of geography in thinking they're an east coast school...who also doesn't want to join an east coast conference.

From what I understand, Notre Dame did try to seek Big Ten ice hockey membership, but the B1G wisely refused.

I don't doubt their fans think the B1G took Maryland and Rutgers as "consolation prizes." Right. The Big Ten said they wanted B1G-PAC more than more members, and with Notre Dame, Rutgers as a member was also pretty much a lock, even if it became a reality before Nebraska. I think *that* wasn't something Notre Dame despised. That they weren't going to be "the final solution" to the Big Ten's collective. In their own minds, it's never about the good of the group, but the good of the group and Notre Dame.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 3:21 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1152
Ohio State's AD doesn't think the Big Ten's necessarily done on the subject of expansion until those GoR's expire. From what he says:

Quote:
Smith said he even expects the Big Ten to someday expand full membership again, maybe after five or six years.

“There will be a point,” he said, “when the business model changes again, frankly, because of media platforms.”


That puts them around a five-year benchmark for a look-in window under the new media contract, assuming it's ironed out shortly after being up (and is structured that way).

He better watch it when he says "business model," though. When your employer starts paying taxes for this stuff, then it can use the spiffy adult table language.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 7:20 am 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2014 6:12 pm
Posts: 30
Bishin, if Geno is saying expansion might happen in 5-6 years, there are only two seemingly viable Big Ten schools now and then which both lack G.O.R. protection from their current conference. Missouri is not bound by any sort of G.O.R. nor is Connecticut.

For fun...

Pod A: Connecticut, Rutgers, Penn State, Maryland
Pod B: Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri
Pod C: Ohio State, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State
Pod D: Wisconsin, Minnesota, Northwestern, Purdue

The AAC could just replace Connecticut with any number of Go5 schools and the SEC could replace Missouri with nobody until 2025 unless they have an interest in Rice. I suppose the Big 12 could let them have West Virginia in a fair trade for scheduling (or something of that note) and the Big 12 could just live out the remainder of the Big 12 G.O.R. until 2025 with BYU filling in for West Virginia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:45 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1572
Mizzou - that ship sailed, but you B10 folks can't get over it. Repeating something enough doesn't make it happen.

GoR's - Perhaps garner an understanding of SEC media contracts. SEC is not weak.

WVU - The SEC had many opportunities to take them. They don't want WVU. WVU is up by Ohio and PA, send an Email to Delany to give them a call.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 11:57 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 10:30 am
Posts: 1375
Location: Baltimore, MD
Absolutely, SEC03, As has been stated many times:

1. B1G does not want UConn
2. SEC does not want WVA
3. Missouri does not want to join the B1G any longer
4. 16 is not a good number for a conference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 12:07 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:14 pm
Posts: 1044
Location: Ciales-Manatí-Bayamón, Puerto Rico
westwolf wrote:
Absolutely, SEC03, As has been stated many times:

1. B1G does not want UConn
2. SEC does not want WVA
3. Missouri does not want to join the B1G any longer
4. 16 is not a good number for a conference.


Logical points. However, why not having a maximum number of schools for a conference to have? Like either 12 or 14.

_________________
Florida State Seminoles fan for life (mostly on football, basketball and baseball)! 2013 ACC football Atlantic Division champions; 2013 ACC football regular season champions; 2013 ACC football conference bowl tournament champions; 2014 NCAA D-I FBS BCS national champions!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:11 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:26 pm
Posts: 405
BIG 10 is interested in AAU schools from the ACC(UVA,UNC,GaTECH) or from the B12(KANSAS,Texas)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 2:17 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1152
westwolf wrote:
4. 16 is not a good number for a conference.


A couple of Big Ten people have said they preferred models beyond 14, though. And they also haven't been quiet about exploring growth again, either. Is fifteen even doable, factoring in CCG governance determinants?

I mean, it may make no sense to anyone other than Big Ten schools how they get to accomplish their goals, including more frequency between meetings with certain schools, but the B1G sure seems to believe the "ideal" isn't 14. It's just a question of how much do they not like the 14-school model. And at what number are things in "happyland" again?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2041 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 ... 137  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users 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:  
 

 

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