NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards
NCAA Map

Discussions by Conference:
  It is currently Tue Sep 02, 2014 2:05 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1987 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 ... 133  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 12:06 pm 
Offline
Junior
Junior
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2003 9:03 pm
Posts: 123
Location: Mississippi
Notsellingjeans wrote:
Quote:
You have a point right there Sec. But it would be manageable if the ACC can find a 16th member and having Notre Dame to play football in the ACC (making the Irish' longtime status as an D-I FBS Independent to an end), which it would eventually lead to this format:

ACC North: Boston College, Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Louisville (replacing Maryland), Virginia, Virginia Tech, Notre Dame (with football in conference play) and an 8th team (whether it should either be UConn, Cincinnati or West Virginia)
ACC South: The Carolina schools (UNC, Duke, NC State, Wake Forest), Clemson, Georgia Tech, and the Florida schools (Florida State and Miami)


That's my long-term hope for the ACC, as a fan. The country clearly prefers logical geographic divisions, as proven by the Big Ten reaction to Legends/Leaders. I'd make one change to the above, however - the program the ACC should target for #16 is Navy football only. Slim as it may be, thats their best chance of getting a future 8-game full commitment out of Notre Dame.


This is logical and would be more or less balanced enough. I think if you speculate too much on "who will be competing in the CG," you are asking for trouble. There are plenty of reasons the ACC divisions were set up as a zipper, but don't be naive enough not to believe that the MAIN REASON was to rematch 'Canes and 'Noles in the CG almost every year. It has never ever happened. And now you have these stupid divisions that no one outside the ACC can keep straight. There is a case to be made for it, but geograhical sensibility is what may compel a fan in Idaho to bother to care or keep up with it. Make divisions that make sense and hope for the best. Now, you know how I feel, but with that said, I believe UVA had made it clear they had no interest in being a part of some "North" division that was essentially the Big East. If forced "north" there may be more that call for going north all right.... to the Big Ten.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 12:52 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
Quinn wrote:
i think we can simplify the lacrosse situation:

1) Lacrosse is not going to be a real factor in Big5 conference expansion. There just isn't the money there to make lacrosse a real factor in a conference picking a school. For instance, the Big Ten would only add UNC, Duke, UVA as schools that have D1 lacrosse.

2) Conferences with their own networks can do just as well sponsoring lacrosse with 5 members than they would with 6. So if the Big Ten or ACC wanted to add programing to their network, they would have the games on. And the school with the best conference record is named the conference champion or #1 seed in a 4 team tourney to decide the champion (giving the network 3 higher value games than the regular season).

The only benefit to having 6 or more members is having an auto-bid. But a lacrosse autobid means little to nothing to say, the ACC who will get at least 1 school in each year. Going forward, with 5 members, I'd still expect 2 ACC schools getting bids each year.


I agree that it's a very minor player and mover in this, but I don't believe it's that insignificant to these conferences. Obviously, several conferences, the B1G and ACC included, have reached out to JHU. It's not JHU's membership that's as big a deal as who wants them and the idea of associate membership that is. The ACC doesn't need AQ...the B1G, even at five, has the right kind of programs to elicit an at-large or two (the combo of UMD, PSU, and OSU is a decent base). But, to television, AQ is important. And, even with such good programs in either the ACC or B1G, there is a statistical chance those conferences fail to produce an at-large. I know that's extremely unlikely in the ACC with UNC, UVA, Duke, AND 'Cuse, but...hey, you never know.

Remember that when the Patriot took Boston and Loyola MD, both AD's said that lacrosse and soccer were among the drivers for that transfer. They saw these sports as the ones that best highlighted their departments. Consider the region, the student body (wealth and nationality), and consider the markets. Lacrosse is a blue-blood's game. It doesn't cost an awful lot of money to field a team, other than the scholarships, but it's who follow the sports where the opportunities exist. It's a sub-market. And JHU is total paydirt: it's elite academically, and it sits in the region where lacrosse is most popular.

Again, I don't expect the B1G to go out and just take anyone...but they do want an AQ designation for their lacrosse conference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 1:04 pm 
Offline
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
CollegeSportsInfo Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:05 am
Posts: 3811
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Quinn wrote:
i think we can simplify the lacrosse situation:

1) Lacrosse is not going to be a real factor in Big5 conference expansion. There just isn't the money there to make lacrosse a real factor in a conference picking a school. For instance, the Big Ten would only add UNC, Duke, UVA as schools that have D1 lacrosse.

2) Conferences with their own networks can do just as well sponsoring lacrosse with 5 members than they would with 6. So if the Big Ten or ACC wanted to add programing to their network, they would have the games on. And the school with the best conference record is named the conference champion or #1 seed in a 4 team tourney to decide the champion (giving the network 3 higher value games than the regular season).

The only benefit to having 6 or more members is having an auto-bid. But a lacrosse autobid means little to nothing to say, the ACC who will get at least 1 school in each year. Going forward, with 5 members, I'd still expect 2 ACC schools getting bids each year.


I agree that it's a very minor player and mover in this, but I don't believe it's that insignificant to these conferences. Obviously, several conferences, the B1G and ACC included, have reached out to JHU. It's not JHU's membership that's as big a deal as who wants them and the idea of associate membership that is. The ACC doesn't need AQ...the B1G, even at five, has the right kind of programs to elicit an at-large or two (the combo of UMD, PSU, and OSU is a decent base). But, to television, AQ is important. And, even with such good programs in either the ACC or B1G, there is a statistical chance those conferences fail to produce an at-large. I know that's extremely unlikely in the ACC with UNC, UVA, Duke, AND 'Cuse, but...hey, you never know.

Remember that when the Patriot took Boston and Loyola MD, both AD's said that lacrosse and soccer were among the drivers for that transfer. They saw these sports as the ones that best highlighted their departments. Consider the region, the student body (wealth and nationality), and consider the markets. Lacrosse is a blue-blood's game. It doesn't cost an awful lot of money to field a team, other than the scholarships, but it's who follow the sports where the opportunities exist. It's a sub-market. And JHU is total paydirt: it's elite academically, and it sits in the region where lacrosse is most popular.

Again, I don't expect the B1G to go out and just take anyone...but they do want an AQ designation for their lacrosse conference.


"Drivers" is applicable when talking a conference at that level. For instance, if the conference can get $1 million from a network by having lacrosse, and split it 6-8 ways, it's considered huge. But for the ACC or Big Ten, they have that revenue and then some coming from other revenue streams. All 5 schools in the Big Ten could drop lacrosse and they schools might actually save money. And the same goes for the Patriot, it's just that since they don't have the TV money from football or basketball, every penny helps since the schools want to have the non-revenue sports as part of their scholar-athlete objectives, which is great.

_________________
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 May 15, 2013 1:44 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7398
Article out of Cedar Rapids discussing new Big Ten bowl lineup possibilities at http://thegazette.com/2013/05/15/big-te ... d-of-bowls


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 3:59 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 396
Quinn wrote:
The Bishin Cutter wrote:
Quinn wrote:
i think we can simplify the lacrosse situation:

1) Lacrosse is not going to be a real factor in Big5 conference expansion. There just isn't the money there to make lacrosse a real factor in a conference picking a school. For instance, the Big Ten would only add UNC, Duke, UVA as schools that have D1 lacrosse.

2) Conferences with their own networks can do just as well sponsoring lacrosse with 5 members than they would with 6. So if the Big Ten or ACC wanted to add programing to their network, they would have the games on. And the school with the best conference record is named the conference champion or #1 seed in a 4 team tourney to decide the champion (giving the network 3 higher value games than the regular season).

The only benefit to having 6 or more members is having an auto-bid. But a lacrosse autobid means little to nothing to say, the ACC who will get at least 1 school in each year. Going forward, with 5 members, I'd still expect 2 ACC schools getting bids each year.


I agree that it's a very minor player and mover in this, but I don't believe it's that insignificant to these conferences. Obviously, several conferences, the B1G and ACC included, have reached out to JHU. It's not JHU's membership that's as big a deal as who wants them and the idea of associate membership that is. The ACC doesn't need AQ...the B1G, even at five, has the right kind of programs to elicit an at-large or two (the combo of UMD, PSU, and OSU is a decent base). But, to television, AQ is important. And, even with such good programs in either the ACC or B1G, there is a statistical chance those conferences fail to produce an at-large. I know that's extremely unlikely in the ACC with UNC, UVA, Duke, AND 'Cuse, but...hey, you never know.

Remember that when the Patriot took Boston and Loyola MD, both AD's said that lacrosse and soccer were among the drivers for that transfer. They saw these sports as the ones that best highlighted their departments. Consider the region, the student body (wealth and nationality), and consider the markets. Lacrosse is a blue-blood's game. It doesn't cost an awful lot of money to field a team, other than the scholarships, but it's who follow the sports where the opportunities exist. It's a sub-market. And JHU is total paydirt: it's elite academically, and it sits in the region where lacrosse is most popular.

Again, I don't expect the B1G to go out and just take anyone...but they do want an AQ designation for their lacrosse conference.


"Drivers" is applicable when talking a conference at that level. For instance, if the conference can get $1 million from a network by having lacrosse, and split it 6-8 ways, it's considered huge. But for the ACC or Big Ten, they have that revenue and then some coming from other revenue streams. All 5 schools in the Big Ten could drop lacrosse and they schools might actually save money. And the same goes for the Patriot, it's just that since they don't have the TV money from football or basketball, every penny helps since the schools want to have the non-revenue sports as part of their scholar-athlete objectives, which is great.

The 3 major military service academies sponsor men's lacrosse. Not trying to detract from the Patriot League or whatever, but from a standpoint of quality schools that could blend with the B1G for certain designated sports as 'affilates', could be worth considering. Look where each is located: in B1G footprint (in Maryland & physically in NY State) or a contiguous state (Colo.); B1G is geographically ideal for it. Heck. the B1G could do alot with having the service academies connected with the BTN. Some partial scheduling could happen with fb, for example. While not AAU research designated, the service academies are solid academically. The B1G could make money; the SAs' could profit, if it transcended more than one sport, or involved a level of co-op scheduling under an umbrella format--a bit out of the traditional box.

The B1G seems to want to grow. The costly GoR's elsewhere limit current choices. Take what's in and around your expanded footprint and develop it to fit your needs. Affiliation is short of all-sports, and can be partial competition for certain sports. The Army-Navy game in fb, and having all 3 service academies 'together' for much, could be workable. If the AFA needed fb games to replace MWC games, the B1G could offer enough to make it worthwhile. The B1G is going to 9 conference games anyway, and discouraging FCS scheduling, and the SAs' could fit into the scheme if done systematically with a degree of flexibility. Basketball could be complicated to resolve, but the B1G could subsidize a lower bb league to accommodate the SAs', such as giving some BTN coverage for it; and apparently they (B1G) have money to toss around, like Maryland's unique travel budget. But it would be set-up for overall profit anyway.

Maybe I sound out in left field on this; but it is a way for the B1G to further develop positively, without the challenges, time, frustrations, discontent, and expenses, to further penetrate other major conferences for all-sports.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 6:31 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 2:37 pm
Posts: 7398
Article out of Des Moines with comments from Big Ten Commish regarding league expansion at http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... onference-


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 6:43 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 662
Location: Columbus, OH
The real solution for Big Ten LAX is internal expansion. Urging Northwestern to start up a program is the logical choice--Chicago is a huge media market and as a private school they have an alumni base that will likely jump on board and follow the program.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2013 8:42 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
fighting muskie wrote:
The real solution for Big Ten LAX is internal expansion. Urging Northwestern to start up a program is the logical choice--Chicago is a huge media market and as a private school they have an alumni base that will likely jump on board and follow the program.


This seems to be so painfully obvious. Most of the schools have a club-level team anyway. From the look of them, it's not like they're bringing their own stuff or hand-me-down's to the fields.

But I think the conference knows the sport is more of an east-coast thing and not as strong in the midwest or plains.

louisvillecard01 wrote:
The B1G seems to want to grow. The costly GoR's elsewhere limit current choices.


They definitely do want to expand. The quotes are all hyperbole and jammed with conditionals. Nothing like "moratorium" or "we think we could exist for all eternity with this, and only this, configuration." That's the kind of talk that would kill expansion debate. They keep the door wide open with "for now" and "at this time."

---

...and it appears we may have the ball rolling again: JHU will join a conference.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 11:13 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1705
it's BAAAACCCKKKK !!!

Paterno et. al. files suit against NCAA....
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... o-sue-ncaa

This was discussed on Bob Costas's show on NBC Sports Wednesday night. 3 people on the panel were all hired / commissioned by the Paterno family / estate.
Freeh and Emmert declined to appear. Costas tried to keep it factual, and basically, these lawyers and former US Attorney General Richard Thornburg laid ot the case.

When you hear the Paterno lawyers discuss the case, it sounds like they plan to make he case that the NCAA has lost institiutional control of itself.
I, for one, agree.
I felt at the time that the NCAA WAY over-stepped the bounds of their charter, by getting into a criminal matter that was outside of the collegiate athletics that it is chartered to regulate.
Emmert just went through the embarrassment of having to back off of NCAA's investigation of U of Miami and former Miami (now Mizzou) coach Frank Haith,
when various leaks and disclosure made it clear the NCAA was not following their own approved procedures and NCAA personnel (some subsequently fired) had run amok.

Paterno's case states that NCAA failed to conduct their own investigation (violating their own procedures) and used the Freeh report as gospel, without questioning it.
Next the NCAA created a consent degree of disciplinary actions against PSU, and used coersion to shove it down the throat of a recently apointed new college president,
under threat of the death penalty being imposed against PSU football.
They further assert that the PSU president could not sign this agreement without approval of the PSU BOT, which never were offically consulted.
The consent decree (based on the Freeh report and no NCAA investigation) implicates people (Paterno and others) who were never afforded due porcess.
Only at the end of the show did Costas bring up the issue (that I personally think is HUGE) about how the NCAA justified their involvement on this rather vague "loss of insitutional control"
argument, which Emmert felt allowed the NCAA to jump all over PSU relating to the criminal actions of someone who allegedly performed them AFTER he was no longer on Paterno's staff.

I think they have a pretty good case, based on several of these arguements - over-reaching jursdiction, lack of due process, coersion (if proven).

Nobody can say the Sandusky affair wasn't a horrible thing. However, Emmert and the NCAA may be found guilty of "piling on" Penn State.
In my opinion, Emmert took advantage of an opportunity to "grand-stand" against a vulnerable institution that was in the midst of an administrative mess.
If this case goes to trial, I expect Emmert and the NCAA to be embarrassed by their lack of professionalism, just as in the U of Miami case.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 30, 2013 12:38 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1541
tute79 wrote:
it's BAAAACCCKKKK !!!

Paterno et. al. files suit against NCAA....
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... o-sue-ncaa

This was discussed on Bob Costas's show on NBC Sports Wednesday night. 3 people on the panel were all hired / commissioned by the Paterno family / estate.
Freeh and Emmert declined to appear. Costas tried to keep it factual, and basically, these lawyers and former US Attorney General Richard Thornburg laid ot the case.

When you hear the Paterno lawyers discuss the case, it sounds like they plan to make he case that the NCAA has lost institiutional control of itself.
I, for one, agree.
I felt at the time that the NCAA WAY over-stepped the bounds of their charter, by getting into a criminal matter that was outside of the collegiate athletics that it is chartered to regulate.
Emmert just went through the embarrassment of having to back off of NCAA's investigation of U of Miami and former Miami (now Mizzou) coach Frank Haith,
when various leaks and disclosure made it clear the NCAA was not following their own approved procedures and NCAA personnel (some subsequently fired) had run amok.

Paterno's case states that NCAA failed to conduct their own investigation (violating their own procedures) and used the Freeh report as gospel, without questioning it.
Next the NCAA created a consent degree of disciplinary actions against PSU, and used coersion to shove it down the throat of a recently apointed new college president,
under threat of the death penalty being imposed against PSU football.
They further assert that the PSU president could not sign this agreement without approval of the PSU BOT, which never were offically consulted.
The consent decree (based on the Freeh report and no NCAA investigation) implicates people (Paterno and others) who were never afforded due porcess.
Only at the end of the show did Costas bring up the issue (that I personally think is HUGE) about how the NCAA justified their involvement on this rather vague "loss of insitutional control"
argument, which Emmert felt allowed the NCAA to jump all over PSU relating to the criminal actions of someone who allegedly performed them AFTER he was no longer on Paterno's staff.

I think they have a pretty good case, based on several of these arguements - over-reaching jursdiction, lack of due process, coersion (if proven).

Nobody can say the Sandusky affair wasn't a horrible thing. However, Emmert and the NCAA may be found guilty of "piling on" Penn State.
In my opinion, Emmert took advantage of an opportunity to "grand-stand" against a vulnerable institution that was in the midst of an administrative mess.
If this case goes to trial, I expect Emmert and the NCAA to be embarrassed by their lack of professionalism, just as in the U of Miami case.


I read the Costas interview earlier today. You reiterated some noteworthy points, tute, 79.
There are several things that trouble me about the Penn State sanctions. One, was the apparent lack of due process. Second, it was a criminal issue in the courts. The categories of separation in sanctioning were murky at best. Third, the NCAA was trying to project real toughness, politically, on a highly emotional and disturbing matter, to make a impressional statement about its own moral compass and to show the public it is exhibiting extreme disdain at what had happened. While horrible and abusive behavior needed to be prosecuted, the NCAA seems to have expanded its role into new territory, duplicating the courts somewhat. Are they now into sanctioning school administrators and coaches and former coaches for DUIs', domestic violence, income tax evasion, grand larceny, etc.? Some illegal stuff elsewhere has happened since they did not pursue. Certain matters are for the governmental courts and agencies, not an athletic organization. A former FBI chief, contracted by an independent organization, is not the judicial system.

Where the NCAA found grounds, at least to investigate, and thus sanction if rules where in violation, was the matter of institutional control and oversight. Allegedly, by the formers' head coach, AD, VP, and perhaps the President, by failing to report a possible crime, and trying to keep potential scandal away from enhanced scrutiny and public knowledge, they were seeking to avoid embarrassment to themselves, the athletic department, fb program, and the community. Thus, by keeping the potential disclosure/inquiry squelched, it would not hurt PSU athletics, thus giving PSU athletics a comparative advantage by hiding the disturbing activities of an employee/former employee.

The prosecuted, former defensive coordinator had resigned from the PSU staff rather abruptly and it was not to take another coaching position, and his age was still relative prime at the time. So the timing when it all began may not be so post-assignment some have alleged.

Still, what Paterno and certain administrators did, or failed to do, in terms or reporting the incident(s), (and allowing the former DC continued access to PSU athletic facilities), have been subject to the judicial process as well. While there are the Emails that pointed to an alleged cover-up by Paterno and others, a now deceased man cannot defend himself or further explain his entire role with it all.

It's a question of scope and focus. I believe Penn State deserved certain, applicable sanctions with regard to institutional cover-up as it may directly impact athletics. However, the unique methodolgy and rush to impose harsh penalties without due process and while the institution was shamed and highly vulnerable to ptessures, is unsettling in multiple ways.

I recall the SMU death penalty. SMU has yet to fully recover from it. Sure, SMU kept repeating violations at the time. But SMU could have gotten the message without it. Cut their TV exposure and scholarships for a longer period and make the fines expensive. Other schools have done as bad, or more disturbing things as SMU did, and have gotten wrist slaps for it. What also plays into much of this, is that certain other institutions (competitors), for their own gain, often relish in peers being severely punished.

Punish violators, but be specific, consistent, and clear, exactly what is to be punished in a measured way, and the "outcome" expected. The PSU players getting punished so much, seems misdirected. The fines?: Certainly some of it was deserved.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2013 1:46 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:25 pm
Posts: 1705
I read the Freeh report cover to cover when it came out, and the report relied heavily on e-mails as "evidence" of what the parties were thinking. I think the e-mails don't lie, but if you omit certain other intervening conversations, you could have perhaps lost some context. The Report then in many places leapt to a "gross generalization" or a very definitive statement that seemed to at times go beyond the "evidence" that was presented.

The one lawyer on Costas made the point that "Paterno didn't even like Sandusky". Hmmm...
Sandusky did serve for a long time at PSU, and Paterno had the ability to hire and fire his assistants....
But at one point (maybe about 1998) Sandusky was told point blank that he WOULD NOT be Paterno's heir-apparent, and at that time Sandusky sought a buy-out, and then Paterno sort of kept him on the staff for another year or two to let him reach a certain threshold in terms of years of service for his pension calculation.

I agree with your point that the victims deserve to be compensated, but the NCAA fines really don't go to the victims identified, if I understand correctly. The money goes to several child-abuse funds in some states other than Pennsylvania. Who decided this ? Some "Do-good"er lawyers at the NCAA, I'm guessing.

This could be a water-shed moment if this goes to trial. We have a court system. The suit will allege that the NCAA is trying to supersede our court system, while throwing due process out the window.

I would like to see this go to court, as I feel the NCAA needs to be "reeled in" a bit...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 31, 2013 11:10 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 2:09 pm
Posts: 1541
Anyone see OSU President Gordon Gee's released comments whereby he had delievered offensive comments at Notre Dame, the SEC, and the Univ. of Louisville?
Google it. (In the Washington Post 5/30/2013). The OSU BoT has placed the 3rd highest salary University President on a "remediation plan".

Gordon, maybe leave off the trash talk, you'll never have the skills and cleverness of a Steve Spurrier-type. Maybe focus your foot-in-the-mouth humor at 'memorabilia-for-tatoos', something way closer to home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:50 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
Objectivism is suspended when wanting to see Penn State pay. Even I am guilty of that to a certain extent. But it's the institution at fault, and football personnel...not the program itself, specifically. I've long waited for the NCAA to justifiably explain where in its charter it felt its actions were justified. That explanation has not come...and I believe it's because they didn't have one, other than filling in the "other" bubble and leaving it as that.

So, I'm happy the Paterno's and some of PSU's trustees and faculty have gone after the NCAA. I understand why the university itself can't do that. I think the university believes that if it can rehabilitate quickly, the punishment will be lessened. However, seeing how much the NCAA under its current leadership has let just about every other issue slip by, I see the NCAA fighting against PSU to the death, because the NCAA will lose ALL of its credibility if it loses. I just hate how battered the school is becoming in the process. It may be irreparable.

As to Gee's comments, they are all over the spectrum of credibility. The ones about expansion included. I long suspected Iowa politics wanted ISU in the conference...in that respect, when the Pitt "block" comes up, and people want to stick it to PSU not wanting them...I believe Iowa becomes an ally of Penn State, because if Pitt gets in, Iowa politics will force ISU's inclusion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 2:59 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 396
Gee may have taken a jab at Louisville because after Maryland was extracted from the ACC for the Big Ten, the ACC quickly made a replacement, in Louisville, as the first step to re-group. Gee and others may have been hoping more ACC dominos would fall, moving into VA, NC, and/or with GT. Whatever one's opinion is of Louisville as an academic institution, AD Tom Jurich has demonstrated how to achieve athletic success, and not just one sport for a cycle.

Gee's lame jab at the SEC is foolish. Maybe there is frustration with negotiations over playoffs and bowls. Maybe the SEC had a role in putting a damper on another Big Ten's expansion thrust. Nevertheless, these power conferences need to cooperate with each other in hashing out a number of issues. Why inflame another major conference when you need to work with them? Gee was chief at Vanderbilt, so much of it strikes as odd. Vandy has been showing appreciable success in athletics since he left, and could he have some unburried issues while working with SEC colleagues?

Gee expressed, in some joking fashion one may assume, as to why Notre Dame was never accepted for membership by the Big Ten. Really? The conference head, and other Big Ten officials, have long noted the desire for Notre Dame, and have made moves to try to make it eventually happen. It's probably another factor in the shots at the ACC.

Under Gee's watch, there are boasts about how much revenue has been brought to Ohio State. Much of it, one would expect, is tied directly to football. In that context, he may be over-zealous with the conference politics, sees himself as a top key player with regard to the maneuvers involved, and takes liberty to issue commentaries about external schools and conferences that made decisions inconsistent with his wishes.

I can't imagine Delany wants Gee shooting-off about expansion in a way that is misleading or incorrect or preferred to be undisclosed. Gee is no Barry Alvarez. Barry can toss an informed implication or suggestion out there, and garner the reaction. I expect most of the time Barry has the blessings of his colleagues and Commish, and Barry avoids the gaffes and the flung insults. He knows athletic politics, and what and when to say it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jun 01, 2013 10:55 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 11:41 am
Posts: 1077
I think Gee's tenure at Brown and Vanderbilt say enough about the guy. They don't care for him much there, and to leave Vanderbilt for Ohio State, no matter what kind of status you hold at your old job, says everything there is to be said about the man...and Ohio State.

People get upset about what he said about Notre Dame. Strangely, it's one of the few things I believe to be true. The Big Ten did a lot of work to get Notre Dame and itself reconciled and attached in the 90's after the Penn State acquisition, but the way Notre Dame let it go down...never seemed right. The faculty wanted it and the Board would have backed it...but how it was done and the way it went to alumni (and then students), only to never get a Board vote? Yeah, that's pretty disingenuous. And the way it sounded, Notre Dame was for going that route once again in 2010. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1987 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116 ... 133  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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