(10-27-2013 12:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 10:03 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:16 PM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 08:36 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I'm not as familiar with Maryland but I know from experience that Rutgers' motto has long been: "Rutgers football: turning the corner since 1869."

Haven't heard that one before.

You're a good sport...hopefully we'll meet again soon in FB and BB.

Thanks. I try to keep an even keel. Some Rutgers fans are delusional and way overstate our importance and our "success". Others are delusional and think we're still horrific and the sky is falling etc. I think of it like this we're not the laughingstock we were 13 years ago in football, but we have a long way to go. We're middle of the pack with the occasional flash of brilliance. At least now we will continue to have a fighting shot by staying in a power conference.

It'd be great to keep the football, basketball and lacrosse series going with Cuse even if its only a 4 times a decade thing. I love the Big Ten schedule but its not the same seeing Pitt, WVU and Cuse not on there.

I am glad to see Rutgers got out of the Big East. I thought the ACC should have offered Rutgers before the B1G did.
I hope Syracuse schedules Rutgers and/or Maryland on a regular basis in football as those are regional rivals plus historical rivals. The proximity and the recruiting make it all the more in interesting.

I feel the same way about Rutgers. I dont know why so many SU fans have so much disdain for Rutgers. But Rutgers would have been a great fit for the Acc.

(10-24-2013 01:31 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 12:01 PM)MKPitt Wrote:  Agreed, the north (particularly the northeast) is home to the wealthiest, healthiest and most educated portion of the country. The south is improving only because it had so much ground to make up but it's still far below the standard of living in the north. I really don't care at all about regions and most northerners don't care at all about northern pride but for some reason there's such a weird obsession with "yankees" in the south so sometimes it is necessary to rebut some of the negative things said about the north. The B1G will be fine in the long run. The good news for the ACC is its schools are located in the area of the south on the coast that is quickly becoming wealthier and more densely populated (Va, NC, SC, GA, and Florida) and with the new northern schools has the potential to be the best conference if schools got their football programs together.

Aw, don't get caught up in that Southern inferiority complex, MK. That's their issue, not yours. Personally I LOVE the South (or at least parts of it). I've traveled a lot over the years and some of my closest friends are from the Deep South.

Now, I do consider Jeff Davis, Robert E. Lee, etc., traitors to this country in the same way I consider Benedict Arnold a traitor. However, I understand why people might feel differently. I don't agree with those folks but I respect their right to feel as they do.

That said, when my friends pull that nonsense about Southern women being inherently more ladylike or Southern men being more gentlemanly or people in general being kinder and more friendly, I just roll my eyes because I have been to enough places to understand that virtue is not a byproduct of geography but rather character. The ratio of flaming arsehole to good, sincere person isn't any different in New York City than it is Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Trust me, that's a fact.

Bravo!

(10-27-2013 12:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 10:03 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 09:16 PM)brista21 Wrote:  Haven't heard that one before.

You're a good sport...hopefully we'll meet again soon in FB and BB.

Thanks. I try to keep an even keel. Some Rutgers fans are delusional and way overstate our importance and our "success". Others are delusional and think we're still horrific and the sky is falling etc. I think of it like this we're not the laughingstock we were 13 years ago in football, but we have a long way to go. We're middle of the pack with the occasional flash of brilliance. At least now we will continue to have a fighting shot by staying in a power conference.

It'd be great to keep the football, basketball and lacrosse series going with Cuse even if its only a 4 times a decade thing. I love the Big Ten schedule but its not the same seeing Pitt, WVU and Cuse not on there.

I am glad to see Rutgers got out of the Big East. I thought the ACC should have offered Rutgers before the B1G did.
I hope Syracuse schedules Rutgers and/or Maryland on a regular basis in football as those are regional rivals plus historical rivals. The proximity and the recruiting make it all the more in interesting.

I feel the same way about Rutgers. I dont know why so many SU fans have so much disdain for Rutgers. But Rutgers would have been a great fit for the Acc.

Two of three from Rutgers, Cincinnati and UConn should have been ACC 15 & 16.

(10-27-2013 07:18 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 10:03 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You're a good sport...hopefully we'll meet again soon in FB and BB.

Thanks. I try to keep an even keel. Some Rutgers fans are delusional and way overstate our importance and our "success". Others are delusional and think we're still horrific and the sky is falling etc. I think of it like this we're not the laughingstock we were 13 years ago in football, but we have a long way to go. We're middle of the pack with the occasional flash of brilliance. At least now we will continue to have a fighting shot by staying in a power conference.

It'd be great to keep the football, basketball and lacrosse series going with Cuse even if its only a 4 times a decade thing. I love the Big Ten schedule but its not the same seeing Pitt, WVU and Cuse not on there.

I am glad to see Rutgers got out of the Big East. I thought the ACC should have offered Rutgers before the B1G did.
I hope Syracuse schedules Rutgers and/or Maryland on a regular basis in football as those are regional rivals plus historical rivals. The proximity and the recruiting make it all the more in interesting.

I feel the same way about Rutgers. I dont know why so many SU fans have so much disdain for Rutgers. But Rutgers would have been a great fit for the Acc.

Two of three from Rutgers, Cincinnati and UConn should have been ACC 15 & 16.

Cincy and UConn are all yours. Enjoy!

(10-27-2013 07:18 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 10:03 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You're a good sport...hopefully we'll meet again soon in FB and BB.

Thanks. I try to keep an even keel. Some Rutgers fans are delusional and way overstate our importance and our "success". Others are delusional and think we're still horrific and the sky is falling etc. I think of it like this we're not the laughingstock we were 13 years ago in football, but we have a long way to go. We're middle of the pack with the occasional flash of brilliance. At least now we will continue to have a fighting shot by staying in a power conference.

It'd be great to keep the football, basketball and lacrosse series going with Cuse even if its only a 4 times a decade thing. I love the Big Ten schedule but its not the same seeing Pitt, WVU and Cuse not on there.

I am glad to see Rutgers got out of the Big East. I thought the ACC should have offered Rutgers before the B1G did.
I hope Syracuse schedules Rutgers and/or Maryland on a regular basis in football as those are regional rivals plus historical rivals. The proximity and the recruiting make it all the more in interesting.

I feel the same way about Rutgers. I dont know why so many SU fans have so much disdain for Rutgers. But Rutgers would have been a great fit for the Acc.

Two of three from Rutgers, Cincinnati and UConn should have been ACC 15 & 16.

I would much rather have had Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and Ville. Cinci would be ok, but with the first four they are not needed.

(10-27-2013 07:18 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 10:03 AM)brista21 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:00 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  You're a good sport...hopefully we'll meet again soon in FB and BB.

Thanks. I try to keep an even keel. Some Rutgers fans are delusional and way overstate our importance and our "success". Others are delusional and think we're still horrific and the sky is falling etc. I think of it like this we're not the laughingstock we were 13 years ago in football, but we have a long way to go. We're middle of the pack with the occasional flash of brilliance. At least now we will continue to have a fighting shot by staying in a power conference.

It'd be great to keep the football, basketball and lacrosse series going with Cuse even if its only a 4 times a decade thing. I love the Big Ten schedule but its not the same seeing Pitt, WVU and Cuse not on there.

I am glad to see Rutgers got out of the Big East. I thought the ACC should have offered Rutgers before the B1G did.
I hope Syracuse schedules Rutgers and/or Maryland on a regular basis in football as those are regional rivals plus historical rivals. The proximity and the recruiting make it all the more in interesting.

I feel the same way about Rutgers. I dont know why so many SU fans have so much disdain for Rutgers. But Rutgers would have been a great fit for the Acc.

Two of three from Rutgers, Cincinnati and UConn should have been ACC 15 & 16.

Wilkie, no offense, but wash your mouth out with soap.

(10-27-2013 08:00 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 07:18 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 10:03 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Thanks. I try to keep an even keel. Some Rutgers fans are delusional and way overstate our importance and our "success". Others are delusional and think we're still horrific and the sky is falling etc. I think of it like this we're not the laughingstock we were 13 years ago in football, but we have a long way to go. We're middle of the pack with the occasional flash of brilliance. At least now we will continue to have a fighting shot by staying in a power conference.

It'd be great to keep the football, basketball and lacrosse series going with Cuse even if its only a 4 times a decade thing. I love the Big Ten schedule but its not the same seeing Pitt, WVU and Cuse not on there.

I am glad to see Rutgers got out of the Big East. I thought the ACC should have offered Rutgers before the B1G did.
I hope Syracuse schedules Rutgers and/or Maryland on a regular basis in football as those are regional rivals plus historical rivals. The proximity and the recruiting make it all the more in interesting.

I feel the same way about Rutgers. I dont know why so many SU fans have so much disdain for Rutgers. But Rutgers would have been a great fit for the Acc.

Two of three from Rutgers, Cincinnati and UConn should have been ACC 15 & 16.

I would much rather have had Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and Ville. Cinci would be ok, but with the first four they are not needed.

Pitt, Syracuse, UofL, Cinci, Navy/G'Town, and ND all in, for the win!

(10-27-2013 08:00 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 07:18 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:31 PM)cuseroc Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 12:48 AM)tj_2009 Wrote:  

(10-24-2013 10:03 AM)brista21 Wrote:  Thanks. I try to keep an even keel. Some Rutgers fans are delusional and way overstate our importance and our "success". Others are delusional and think we're still horrific and the sky is falling etc. I think of it like this we're not the laughingstock we were 13 years ago in football, but we have a long way to go. We're middle of the pack with the occasional flash of brilliance. At least now we will continue to have a fighting shot by staying in a power conference.

It'd be great to keep the football, basketball and lacrosse series going with Cuse even if its only a 4 times a decade thing. I love the Big Ten schedule but its not the same seeing Pitt, WVU and Cuse not on there.

I am glad to see Rutgers got out of the Big East. I thought the ACC should have offered Rutgers before the B1G did.
I hope Syracuse schedules Rutgers and/or Maryland on a regular basis in football as those are regional rivals plus historical rivals. The proximity and the recruiting make it all the more in interesting.

I feel the same way about Rutgers. I dont know why so many SU fans have so much disdain for Rutgers. But Rutgers would have been a great fit for the Acc.

Two of three from Rutgers, Cincinnati and UConn should have been ACC 15 & 16.

I would much rather have had Pitt, Syracuse, Rutgers and Ville. Cinci would be ok, but with the first four they are not needed.

As much as I like where we are I would have liked that probably just as much. BC, Cuse, Pitt, UVA, VT, UMD, UNC, Duke and NC State would have all been driveable away game weekends for us. In the Big Ten we have just 3.

(10-27-2013 07:18 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Two of three from Rutgers, Cincinnati and UConn should have been ACC 15 & 16.

IMO, Rutgers, Penn St and Maryland should all be ACC.

The story is a very short, streamlined version of what went on. The B1G had expansion on its mind for a long time. As many as 2 dozens schools were shown to add value to the BTN. Only UNL was approved by a majority. This in spite of PSU really stressing they wanted an eastern presence for travel and rivalries.

UT, ND and either TAMU or UNL would have been the grand slam. They got UNL, still a home run. They whiffed completely on the eastern front. However, everyone was buying into the "ACC is crap and ready to fall apart". The B1G had the idea that the eastern schools would be there whenever they called (you can add in Mizzou and maybe a couple other schools, probably OU-for UT's sake - academically equal to UNL) and did not expect the ACC nor the SEC to take target schools.

One thing overlooked is that NY State has more population than NJ and MD combined. Any strategy for a northeastern presence without Syracuse is seriously flawed as the only big time program in the state and having a huge presence in the NYC. Recall that upstate is roughly equal to NJ and twice that of MD. Adding Syracuse and Rutgers or UMD would have been a much more successful expansion than Rutgers and UMD. Syracuse has a strong following upstate in all sports and a strong following in hoops and lacrosse in NYC (yes, lacrosse is big in NYC/LI), so the BTN would be more likely to have success statewide than not and would not have been a gamble as both NJ and MD are. Syracuse would have warranted the top premium for BTN upstate and would have added value for downstate (huge college hoops fans).

I agree with others that the B1G had strong designs on ND and may have thought they had ND boxed in. For the Big 12 fans that really thought ND would join to play Iowa State, OSU and TTech, sorry guys, it was never happening. ND had its goals (a national schedule, hint, hint). The ACC deal allows ND to keep their national schedule and secure their Olympic sports in a stable league.

Rutgers and UMD were probably the best remaining after Syracuse Pitt and ND committed to the ACC and TAMU and Mizzou were lost to the SEC. Sorry, Louisville, you simply don't qualify as an eastern presence in the eyes of PSU, which had serious talks about jumping to the ACC. It probably would not have happened, let's face it, the BTN $$ was much more than any conference money at the time. However, PSU did get some eastern presence. UConn and UMass probably would help the BTN some, but not as much as UMD and Rutgers (which totals more population and UMD breaks into the original ACC group in hopes of luring UVA, UNC, GATech).

Overall, Rutgers and UMB will be a drain on the BTN for a few years. In the long term, both should bring enough value for status quo. If either or both hold their own in the major sports, then they can become valuable adds. Still nowhere near what the original grand slam (UT, ND and either UNL or TAMU - and I think OU) would have brought the BTN, or even several other options. Also, the BTN has an east coast presence with PSU, UMD and Rutgers, effectively blocking the ACC from claiming to own the eastern seaboard but did fail to secure the big northeastern prize, NY State and NYC is still not a B1G city by any stretch of the imagination.

(10-28-2013 04:47 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(10-27-2013 07:18 PM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Two of three from Rutgers, Cincinnati and UConn should have been ACC 15 & 16.

IMO, Rutgers, Penn St and Maryland should all be ACC.

Great! Now you just gave the Dude a reason to write a post how the Big 12 is going to blow apart the B1G, with the leftovers of PSU, Rutgers and UMD going to the ACC, while Michigan, UNL, Michigan State, Ohio State, Wiscy, and Northwestern go to the Big 12. The SEC picks up Indiana and Illinois. While the PAC grabs Iowa and Minnesota. Purdue gets shafted, unless ND somehow magically remains indy, in which case they go to the ACC.

OK, sarcasm off.

(10-29-2013 09:09 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  The story is a very short, streamlined version of what went on. The B1G had expansion on its mind for a long time. As many as 2 dozens schools were shown to add value to the BTN. Only UNL was approved by a majority. This in spite of PSU really stressing they wanted an eastern presence for travel and rivalries.

UT, ND and either TAMU or UNL would have been the grand slam. They got UNL, still a home run. They whiffed completely on the eastern front. However, everyone was buying into the "ACC is crap and ready to fall apart". The B1G had the idea that the eastern schools would be there whenever they called (you can add in Mizzou and maybe a couple other schools, probably OU-for UT's sake - academically equal to UNL) and did not expect the ACC nor the SEC to take target schools.

One thing overlooked is that NY State has more population than NJ and MD combined. Any strategy for a northeastern presence without Syracuse is seriously flawed as the only big time program in the state and having a huge presence in the NYC. Recall that upstate is roughly equal to NJ and twice that of MD. Adding Syracuse and Rutgers or UMD would have been a much more successful expansion than Rutgers and UMD. Syracuse has a strong following upstate in all sports and a strong following in hoops and lacrosse in NYC (yes, lacrosse is big in NYC/LI), so the BTN would be more likely to have success statewide than not and would not have been a gamble as both NJ and MD are. Syracuse would have warranted the top premium for BTN upstate and would have added value for downstate (huge college hoops fans).

I agree with others that the B1G had strong designs on ND and may have thought they had ND boxed in. For the Big 12 fans that really thought ND would join to play Iowa State, OSU and TTech, sorry guys, it was never happening. ND had its goals (a national schedule, hint, hint). The ACC deal allows ND to keep their national schedule and secure their Olympic sports in a stable league.

Rutgers and UMD were probably the best remaining after Syracuse Pitt and ND committed to the ACC and TAMU and Mizzou were lost to the SEC. Sorry, Louisville, you simply don't qualify as an eastern presence in the eyes of PSU, which had serious talks about jumping to the ACC. It probably would not have happened, let's face it, the BTN $$ was much more than any conference money at the time. However, PSU did get some eastern presence. UConn and UMass probably would help the BTN some, but not as much as UMD and Rutgers (which totals more population and UMD breaks into the original ACC group in hopes of luring UVA, UNC, GATech).

Overall, Rutgers and UMB will be a drain on the BTN for a few years. In the long term, both should bring enough value for status quo. If either or both hold their own in the major sports, then they can become valuable adds. Still nowhere near what the original grand slam (UT, ND and either UNL or TAMU - and I think OU) would have brought the BTN, or even several other options. Also, the BTN has an east coast presence with PSU, UMD and Rutgers, effectively blocking the ACC from claiming to own the eastern seaboard but did fail to secure the big northeastern prize, NY State and NYC is still not a B1G city by any stretch of the imagination.

Basically agree with most of this. I think the northeastern strategy back in 2010 was the rumor out of FOX Sports Indianapolis of Nebraska, which was a lock by that time for #12 (with UT out of the picture) and ND, MD, RU, and SU for expansion to 16.

For whatever reason, the BiG wasn't about to go to 16 then and probably figured that ND would just remain indy, MD would be there for the taking (at a price), and RU and SU would always be there, if better targets didn't materialize - UNC and UVa.

I do, however, think the northeastern strategy was based more upon the synergy of combining PSU, Michigan, and OSU with the likes of all three of MD, RU, and SU, and if they could have gotten them to bite ND - moreso than any individual value MD, RU, and SU bring by themselves.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-23-2013 10:36 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Now the South and the Sunbelt regions are where most live now, coupled with ACC having Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College, makes the ACC a force to be reckoned with. This is why the ACC's future is bright with teams that bring the cities of Boston, NYC, Philly, Chicago, plus the Southern cities. As the rust belt continues to die, so will the Rust Belt Conference's market. Detroit and Cleveland are just the tip of the iceberg.

The Rust Belt and Northeast wields a lot of power! Not one Northern State has seen a population decline decade over decade... they just aren't growing as fast as the percentages in the south... as this graph shows population spikes representing where/how people are scattered across the country... the south has a long way to go to catch up to the population of the Rust Belt and Northeastern States...

(10-30-2013 10:39 AM)IceJus10 Wrote:  

(10-23-2013 10:36 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  Now the South and the Sunbelt regions are where most live now, coupled with ACC having Notre Dame, Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College, makes the ACC a force to be reckoned with. This is why the ACC's future is bright with teams that bring the cities of Boston, NYC, Philly, Chicago, plus the Southern cities. As the rust belt continues to die, so will the Rust Belt Conference's market. Detroit and Cleveland are just the tip of the iceberg.

The Rust Belt and Northeast wields a lot of power! Not one Northern State has seen a population decline decade over decade... they just aren't growing as fast as the percentages in the south... as this graph shows population spikes representing where/how people are scattered across the country... the south has a long way to go to catch up to the population of the Rust Belt and Northeastern States...

The total population is a bit of a red herring. The bigger issue is where the athletes are coming from. All the money in the world isn't going to overcome the lack of football players in the B1G footprint, and the addition of MD and NJ are marginal at best, since they were already presumably on the edge of the footprint. Kids in MD's recruiting grounds were always going to give a listen if Penn State came calling. The B1G was always going to do as well in NJ as they will now.

Ohio State and Michigan should always be able to recruit nationally, and will get their pick of the best of the footprint. But overall, B1G football could seriously wither on the vine.

Everyone acknowledges that Ohio is good recruiting territory, right? They have a respectable 9 kids in the ESPN 300. PA has 4 kids in the ESPN 300.

Alabama has 12
North Carolina has 12
Virginia has 11
South Carolina has 10

We are not even talking about Florida and Georgia here. Ohio and Pennsylvania are the Big 10's "Florida and Georgia" and they pale in comparisons to afterthought states in the south.

That's just not going to cut it, and the Big 10 has to know it. They've got great fans and great support and tons of money, but the athletes just aren't there. The Big 10 is screwed, I'm sorry. They just will not be able to overcome that over time.

syracuse would have been the b10s top choice based on their connection to psu, markets & athletics.

i believe that in the early conference realignment stages (2009-2010) the b10 gave serious thought to syracuse but couldnt pull it off because of 1 of them following reasons

1. syracuse wanted to be in the Lax/bb orientated, private school dominated ACC rather than "fill a northwestern role" in the b10

2. the b10 didnt want syracuse due to their private school, small research status

3. the b10 said "F*** this" about setting foot on the SU campus

imo there is a very good chance that syracuse might have actually been the one who rejected the b10 had the b10 thought that athletics > research dollars.

ive always taken the moneyball approach to conf realignment where you can use geography, past realignment history, rivalries, academic rankings, & a form of an "eyeball test" to accurately predict a lot of these moves.

from my own perspective and from the bloggers that i think were the most accurate because they had the best perspective of how b10 conference realignment works. i think the schools the b10 was considering the most were
nebraska
maryland
colorado
syracuse
rutgers
mizz

i dont think they had as big of an interest with notre dame, texas & uconn as people tend to think because those schools have a lot of political baggage that comes with them and when you deal with those schools you never know if you are dealing with the school themselves or outside forces who are controlling the school. giving any of those schools a vote on b10 affairs would be very bothersome to the rest of the b10

ku- despite being aau their academics were just not good enough
pitt- as long as joe pa was alive this didnt have a chance and the b10 already has the
oklahoma- good football program, but the AAU is the ultimate deal breaker
unc- they were just too far away from the b10s "midwest" routes. their identity is southern

(10-30-2013 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  syracuse would have been the b10s top choice based on their connection to psu, markets & athletics.

i believe that in the early conference realignment stages (2009-2010) the b10 gave serious thought to syracuse but couldnt pull it off because of 1 of them following reasons

1. syracuse wanted to be in the Lax/bb orientated, private school dominated ACC rather than "fill a northwestern role" in the b10

2. the b10 didnt want syracuse due to their private school, small research status

3. the b10 said "F*** this" about setting foot on the SU campus

imo there is a very good chance that syracuse might have actually been the one who rejected the b10 had the b10 thought that athletics > research dollars.

ive always taken the moneyball approach to conf realignment where you can use geography, past realignment history, rivalries, academic rankings, & a form of an "eyeball test" to accurately predict a lot of these moves.

from my own perspective and from the bloggers that i think were the most accurate because they had the best perspective of how b10 conference realignment works. i think the schools the b10 was considering the most were
nebraska
maryland
colorado
syracuse
rutgers
mizz

i dont think they had as big of an interest with notre dame, texas & uconn as people tend to think because those schools have a lot of political baggage that comes with them and when you deal with those schools you never know if you are dealing with the school themselves or outside forces who are controlling the school. giving any of those schools a vote on b10 affairs would be very bothersome to the rest of the b10

ku- despite being aau their academics were just not good enough
pitt- as long as joe pa was alive this didnt have a chance and the b10 already has the
oklahoma- good football program, but the AAU is the ultimate deal breaker
unc- they were just too far away from the b10s "midwest" routes. their identity is southern

There are no "outside forces" running or controlling Notre Dame. Pope Francis is not the AD or president of the university.

The Vatican/Catholic Church does not have anything to do with the governing of ND.

It is a self contained, private school governed by a Board of Trustees and a Board of Fellows, and administered by the Holy Cross Congregation/Order of priests (who founded the school in 1842).

The Fellows of the University are a group of six Holy Cross religious and six lay members who have final say over the operation of the university.

The Fellows vote on potential trustees and sign off on all major decisions by that body. The trustees select the president from the United States Province of the Congregation of Holy Cross.


The Big Ten has been after ND for years. The 1999 pursuit and rejection was very public.

There has been much discussion about the genius Delany's attempts or plans to hopefully "checkmate" ND with the BTN in 2010. His pursuit of or great interest in Texas was also widely discussed at that time.

UConn? I don't think that the Big Ten pursued them like ND and Texas but what "political baggage" does UConn possess?

(10-30-2013 03:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  syracuse would have been the b10s top choice based on their connection to psu, markets & athletics.

i believe that in the early conference realignment stages (2009-2010) the b10 gave serious thought to syracuse but couldnt pull it off because of 1 of them following reasons

1. syracuse wanted to be in the Lax/bb orientated, private school dominated ACC rather than "fill a northwestern role" in the b10

2. the b10 didnt want syracuse due to their private school, small research status

3. the b10 said "F*** this" about setting foot on the SU campus

imo there is a very good chance that syracuse might have actually been the one who rejected the b10 had the b10 thought that athletics > research dollars.

ive always taken the moneyball approach to conf realignment where you can use geography, past realignment history, rivalries, academic rankings, & a form of an "eyeball test" to accurately predict a lot of these moves.

from my own perspective and from the bloggers that i think were the most accurate because they had the best perspective of how b10 conference realignment works. i think the schools the b10 was considering the most were
nebraska
maryland
colorado
syracuse
rutgers
mizz

i dont think they had as big of an interest with notre dame, texas & uconn as people tend to think because those schools have a lot of political baggage that comes with them and when you deal with those schools you never know if you are dealing with the school themselves or outside forces who are controlling the school. giving any of those schools a vote on b10 affairs would be very bothersome to the rest of the b10

ku- despite being aau their academics were just not good enough
pitt- as long as joe pa was alive this didnt have a chance and the b10 already has the
oklahoma- good football program, but the AAU is the ultimate deal breaker
unc- they were just too far away from the b10s "midwest" routes. their identity is southern

There are no "outside forces" running or controlling Notre Dame. Pope Francis is not the AD or president of the university.

The Vatican/Catholic Church does not have anything to do with the governing of ND.

It is a self contained, private school governed by a Board of Trustees and a Board of Fellows, and administered by the Holy Cross Congregation/Order of priests (who founded the school in 1842).

The Fellows of the University are a group of six Holy Cross religious and six lay members who have final say over the operation of the university.

The Fellows vote on potential trustees and sign off on all major decisions by that body. The trustees select the president from the United States Province of the Congregation of Holy Cross.


The Big Ten has been after ND for years. The 1999 pursuit and rejection was very public.

There has been much discussion about the genius Delany's attempts or plans to hopefully "checkmate" ND with the BTN in 2010. His pursuit of or great interest in Texas was also widely discussed at that time.

UConn? I don't think that the Big Ten pursued them like ND and Texas but what "political baggage" does UConn possess?

uconn comes from a state/region that is seen as anti land grant pro private schools. it is hard to be a successful land grant in that state and when you deal with that school you have no idea if you are dealing with the school or the politicians. they have a long history of letting the politicians of the state make major decisions for uconn rather than the school itself. key examples. the majority of their athletic facilities are located 22 miles off campus in a move thats designed to be best for the state & not so much for storres. its a reoccurring theme with uconn and why they always butt heads with conferencemates.

ive heard it described by syracuse admins as "they just give off bad vibes" and "i dont like how that school is run". thats just what i heard from someone at syracuse. uconn has a long history of being dislike by other schools. they butt heads with BC, they got passed over time & time again in conf realignment, publicly outed & a full scheduling embargo by their regional rival (BC). the acc opted for ND & LV over uconn and syracuse was rumored to be a major proponent AGAINST uconn. its a reoccurring theme that all of uconns rivals/conference mates are very quick to toss that school aside and i think the running of the school is a major reason for that. they have their issue's that make them unworthy of a p5 bid, but their bb program is good enough to get a p5 bid. every other top 10 bb program have a p5 bid except uconn

and think about this.....so far not 1 former BE or new big east school has them on the ooc. why is that? they are a national name, they are a landgrant, brand new bb arena/fb stadium. to get passed over this many times you gotta ask yourself what is going on?

as for Notre Dame, they are not controlled by politicians, no what they do is much worse for the b10, they get controlled by religion. it may not be as bad as tcu. smu, baylor or even byu. the point about notre dame is that they do have a religious following that they do have to put up with. doesnt matter how often they listen to that following, that very following existing is enough to raise an eyebrow. the obama thing had 350,000 signatures that is the last thing any b10 school wants to deal with

who gets the final say is not the BoT but the fellows all of which are religious officials and that alone is enough to make a lot of b10 schools very uncomfortable allowing that kind of influence into the conference

there have been 3 major events since 1999. the obama abortion controversy, a steady decline in thosewho classify themselves as religius (13% from 2005-2011), & the feds easing restrictions on stem cell research. in 1999 the religion issue could of been set aside, but the last 14 years have only made it harder for ND to overcome those religious ties. thats why we see events happening at BYU, baylor, tcu, smu, & liberty just go to show that schools/conferences/public perception are only being more & more anti religious affiliation

(10-30-2013 03:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 03:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  syracuse would have been the b10s top choice based on their connection to psu, markets & athletics.

i believe that in the early conference realignment stages (2009-2010) the b10 gave serious thought to syracuse but couldnt pull it off because of 1 of them following reasons

1. syracuse wanted to be in the Lax/bb orientated, private school dominated ACC rather than "fill a northwestern role" in the b10

2. the b10 didnt want syracuse due to their private school, small research status

3. the b10 said "F*** this" about setting foot on the SU campus

imo there is a very good chance that syracuse might have actually been the one who rejected the b10 had the b10 thought that athletics > research dollars.

ive always taken the moneyball approach to conf realignment where you can use geography, past realignment history, rivalries, academic rankings, & a form of an "eyeball test" to accurately predict a lot of these moves.

from my own perspective and from the bloggers that i think were the most accurate because they had the best perspective of how b10 conference realignment works. i think the schools the b10 was considering the most were
nebraska
maryland
colorado
syracuse
rutgers
mizz

i dont think they had as big of an interest with notre dame, texas & uconn as people tend to think because those schools have a lot of political baggage that comes with them and when you deal with those schools you never know if you are dealing with the school themselves or outside forces who are controlling the school. giving any of those schools a vote on b10 affairs would be very bothersome to the rest of the b10

ku- despite being aau their academics were just not good enough
pitt- as long as joe pa was alive this didnt have a chance and the b10 already has the
oklahoma- good football program, but the AAU is the ultimate deal breaker
unc- they were just too far away from the b10s "midwest" routes. their identity is southern

There are no "outside forces" running or controlling Notre Dame. Pope Francis is not the AD or president of the university.

The Vatican/Catholic Church does not have anything to do with the governing of ND.

It is a self contained, private school governed by a Board of Trustees and a Board of Fellows, and administered by the Holy Cross Congregation/Order of priests (who founded the school in 1842).

The Fellows of the University are a group of six Holy Cross religious and six lay members who have final say over the operation of the university.

The Fellows vote on potential trustees and sign off on all major decisions by that body. The trustees select the president from the United States Province of the Congregation of Holy Cross.


The Big Ten has been after ND for years. The 1999 pursuit and rejection was very public.

There has been much discussion about the genius Delany's attempts or plans to hopefully "checkmate" ND with the BTN in 2010. His pursuit of or great interest in Texas was also widely discussed at that time.

UConn? I don't think that the Big Ten pursued them like ND and Texas but what "political baggage" does UConn possess?

uconn comes from a state/region that is seen as anti land grant pro private schools. it is hard to be a successful land grant in that state and when you deal with that school you have no idea if you are dealing with the school or the politicians. they have a long history of letting the politicians of the state make major decisions for uconn rather than the school itself. key examples. the majority of their athletic facilities are located 22 miles off campus in a move thats designed to be best for the state & not so much for storres. its a reoccurring theme with uconn and why they always butt heads with conferencemates.

ive heard it described by syracuse admins as "they just give off bad vibes" and "i dont like how that school is run". thats just what i heard from someone at syracuse. uconn has a long history of being dislike by other schools. they butt heads with BC, they got passed over time & time again in conf realignment, publicly outed & a full scheduling embargo by their regional rival (BC). the acc opted for ND & LV over uconn and syracuse was rumored to be a major proponent AGAINST uconn. its a reoccurring theme that all of uconns rivals/conference mates are very quick to toss that school aside and i think the running of the school is a major reason for that. they have their issue's that make them unworthy of a p5 bid, but their bb program is good enough to get a p5 bid. every other top 10 bb program have a p5 bid except uconn

and think about this.....so far not 1 former BE or new big east school has them on the ooc. why is that? they are a national name, they are a landgrant, brand new bb arena/fb stadium. to get passed over this many times you gotta ask yourself what is going on?

as for Notre Dame, they are not controlled by politicians, no what they do is much worse for the b10, they get controlled by religion. it may not be as bad as tcu. smu, baylor or even byu. the point about notre dame is that they do have a religious following that they do have to put up with. doesnt matter how often they listen to that following, that very following existing is enough to raise an eyebrow. the obama thing had 350,000 signatures that is the last thing any b10 school wants to deal with

who gets the final say is not the BoT but the fellows all of which are religious officials and that alone is enough to make a lot of b10 schools very uncomfortable allowing that kind of influence into the conference

there have been 3 major events since 1999. the obama abortion controversy, a steady decline in thosewho classify themselves as religius (13% from 2005-2011), & the feds easing restrictions on stem cell research. in 1999 the religion issue could of been set aside, but the last 14 years have only made it harder for ND to overcome those religious ties. thats why we see events happening at BYU, baylor, tcu, smu, & liberty just go to show that schools/conferences/public perception are only being more & more anti religious affiliation

I think you are reading too much into the situation. The B1G wanted ND and screwed up They could have had ND in a similar fashion as the ACC has them now, the B1G refused partial members (until the tagged Johns Hopkins). Delaney simply thought he could box in ND and force them to join a conference, ideally the B1G.

Religion had nothing to do with the situation. Even the PAC would have to take ND if they wanted to join, in spite of their objections to BYU, TCU, SMU and Baylor. Other than BYU, no BCS level religious school has the religious issue you allege. BYU refuses to play on Sundays, all other schools in BCS level play as scheduled. Only the California schools would object to adding Baylor, TCU and SMU, no other school or conference would care so long as all by-laws are met. (Ironically, USC was affiliated with the Methodists until the 1950's).

(10-29-2013 11:22 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(10-29-2013 09:09 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  The story is a very short, streamlined version of what went on. The B1G had expansion on its mind for a long time. As many as 2 dozens schools were shown to add value to the BTN. Only UNL was approved by a majority. This in spite of PSU really stressing they wanted an eastern presence for travel and rivalries.

UT, ND and either TAMU or UNL would have been the grand slam. They got UNL, still a home run. They whiffed completely on the eastern front. However, everyone was buying into the "ACC is crap and ready to fall apart". The B1G had the idea that the eastern schools would be there whenever they called (you can add in Mizzou and maybe a couple other schools, probably OU-for UT's sake - academically equal to UNL) and did not expect the ACC nor the SEC to take target schools.

One thing overlooked is that NY State has more population than NJ and MD combined. Any strategy for a northeastern presence without Syracuse is seriously flawed as the only big time program in the state and having a huge presence in the NYC. Recall that upstate is roughly equal to NJ and twice that of MD. Adding Syracuse and Rutgers or UMD would have been a much more successful expansion than Rutgers and UMD. Syracuse has a strong following upstate in all sports and a strong following in hoops and lacrosse in NYC (yes, lacrosse is big in NYC/LI), so the BTN would be more likely to have success statewide than not and would not have been a gamble as both NJ and MD are. Syracuse would have warranted the top premium for BTN upstate and would have added value for downstate (huge college hoops fans).

I agree with others that the B1G had strong designs on ND and may have thought they had ND boxed in. For the Big 12 fans that really thought ND would join to play Iowa State, OSU and TTech, sorry guys, it was never happening. ND had its goals (a national schedule, hint, hint). The ACC deal allows ND to keep their national schedule and secure their Olympic sports in a stable league.

Rutgers and UMD were probably the best remaining after Syracuse Pitt and ND committed to the ACC and TAMU and Mizzou were lost to the SEC. Sorry, Louisville, you simply don't qualify as an eastern presence in the eyes of PSU, which had serious talks about jumping to the ACC. It probably would not have happened, let's face it, the BTN $$ was much more than any conference money at the time. However, PSU did get some eastern presence. UConn and UMass probably would help the BTN some, but not as much as UMD and Rutgers (which totals more population and UMD breaks into the original ACC group in hopes of luring UVA, UNC, GATech).

Overall, Rutgers and UMB will be a drain on the BTN for a few years. In the long term, both should bring enough value for status quo. If either or both hold their own in the major sports, then they can become valuable adds. Still nowhere near what the original grand slam (UT, ND and either UNL or TAMU - and I think OU) would have brought the BTN, or even several other options. Also, the BTN has an east coast presence with PSU, UMD and Rutgers, effectively blocking the ACC from claiming to own the eastern seaboard but did fail to secure the big northeastern prize, NY State and NYC is still not a B1G city by any stretch of the imagination.

Basically agree with most of this. I think the northeastern strategy back in 2010 was the rumor out of FOX Sports Indianapolis of Nebraska, which was a lock by that time for #12 (with UT out of the picture) and ND, MD, RU, and SU for expansion to 16.

For whatever reason, the BiG wasn't about to go to 16 then and probably figured that ND would just remain indy, MD would be there for the taking (at a price), and RU and SU would always be there, if better targets didn't materialize - UNC and UVa.

I do, however, think the northeastern strategy was based more upon the synergy of combining PSU, Michigan, and OSU with the likes of all three of MD, RU, and SU, and if they could have gotten them to bite ND - moreso than any individual value MD, RU, and SU bring by themselves.

Cheers,
Neil

I think you are correct, the expansion to 16 could have been OK'd if ND was on board, otherwise, no rush because they thought everyone would remain in play. Somehow they never imagined the SEC and ACC expanding beyond 12, at least it appears that way.

Also, agree that ND would have brought more value nationally than any of the three regionally (they lack ND's national following).

(10-30-2013 07:26 PM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 03:57 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 03:27 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(10-30-2013 11:22 AM)john01992 Wrote:  syracuse would have been the b10s top choice based on their connection to psu, markets & athletics.

i believe that in the early conference realignment stages (2009-2010) the b10 gave serious thought to syracuse but couldnt pull it off because of 1 of them following reasons

1. syracuse wanted to be in the Lax/bb orientated, private school dominated ACC rather than "fill a northwestern role" in the b10

2. the b10 didnt want syracuse due to their private school, small research status

3. the b10 said "F*** this" about setting foot on the SU campus

imo there is a very good chance that syracuse might have actually been the one who rejected the b10 had the b10 thought that athletics > research dollars.

ive always taken the moneyball approach to conf realignment where you can use geography, past realignment history, rivalries, academic rankings, & a form of an "eyeball test" to accurately predict a lot of these moves.

from my own perspective and from the bloggers that i think were the most accurate because they had the best perspective of how b10 conference realignment works. i think the schools the b10 was considering the most were
nebraska
maryland
colorado
syracuse
rutgers
mizz

i dont think they had as big of an interest with notre dame, texas & uconn as people tend to think because those schools have a lot of political baggage that comes with them and when you deal with those schools you never know if you are dealing with the school themselves or outside forces who are controlling the school. giving any of those schools a vote on b10 affairs would be very bothersome to the rest of the b10

ku- despite being aau their academics were just not good enough
pitt- as long as joe pa was alive this didnt have a chance and the b10 already has the
oklahoma- good football program, but the AAU is the ultimate deal breaker
unc- they were just too far away from the b10s "midwest" routes. their identity is southern

There are no "outside forces" running or controlling Notre Dame. Pope Francis is not the AD or president of the university.

The Vatican/Catholic Church does not have anything to do with the governing of ND.

It is a self contained, private school governed by a Board of Trustees and a Board of Fellows, and administered by the Holy Cross Congregation/Order of priests (who founded the school in 1842).

The Fellows of the University are a group of six Holy Cross religious and six lay members who have final say over the operation of the university.

The Fellows vote on potential trustees and sign off on all major decisions by that body. The trustees select the president from the United States Province of the Congregation of Holy Cross.


The Big Ten has been after ND for years. The 1999 pursuit and rejection was very public.

There has been much discussion about the genius Delany's attempts or plans to hopefully "checkmate" ND with the BTN in 2010. His pursuit of or great interest in Texas was also widely discussed at that time.

UConn? I don't think that the Big Ten pursued them like ND and Texas but what "political baggage" does UConn possess?

uconn comes from a state/region that is seen as anti land grant pro private schools. it is hard to be a successful land grant in that state and when you deal with that school you have no idea if you are dealing with the school or the politicians. they have a long history of letting the politicians of the state make major decisions for uconn rather than the school itself. key examples. the majority of their athletic facilities are located 22 miles off campus in a move thats designed to be best for the state & not so much for storres. its a reoccurring theme with uconn and why they always butt heads with conferencemates.

ive heard it described by syracuse admins as "they just give off bad vibes" and "i dont like how that school is run". thats just what i heard from someone at syracuse. uconn has a long history of being dislike by other schools. they butt heads with BC, they got passed over time & time again in conf realignment, publicly outed & a full scheduling embargo by their regional rival (BC). the acc opted for ND & LV over uconn and syracuse was rumored to be a major proponent AGAINST uconn. its a reoccurring theme that all of uconns rivals/conference mates are very quick to toss that school aside and i think the running of the school is a major reason for that. they have their issue's that make them unworthy of a p5 bid, but their bb program is good enough to get a p5 bid. every other top 10 bb program have a p5 bid except uconn

and think about this.....so far not 1 former BE or new big east school has them on the ooc. why is that? they are a national name, they are a landgrant, brand new bb arena/fb stadium. to get passed over this many times you gotta ask yourself what is going on?

as for Notre Dame, they are not controlled by politicians, no what they do is much worse for the b10, they get controlled by religion. it may not be as bad as tcu. smu, baylor or even byu. the point about notre dame is that they do have a religious following that they do have to put up with. doesnt matter how often they listen to that following, that very following existing is enough to raise an eyebrow. the obama thing had 350,000 signatures that is the last thing any b10 school wants to deal with

who gets the final say is not the BoT but the fellows all of which are religious officials and that alone is enough to make a lot of b10 schools very uncomfortable allowing that kind of influence into the conference

there have been 3 major events since 1999. the obama abortion controversy, a steady decline in thosewho classify themselves as religius (13% from 2005-2011), & the feds easing restrictions on stem cell research. in 1999 the religion issue could of been set aside, but the last 14 years have only made it harder for ND to overcome those religious ties. thats why we see events happening at BYU, baylor, tcu, smu, & liberty just go to show that schools/conferences/public perception are only being more & more anti religious affiliation

I think you are reading too much into the situation. The B1G wanted ND and screwed up They could have had ND in a similar fashion as the ACC has them now, the B1G refused partial members (until the tagged Johns Hopkins). Delaney simply thought he could box in ND and force them to join a conference, ideally the B1G.

Religion had nothing to do with the situation. Even the PAC would have to take ND if they wanted to join, in spite of their objections to BYU, TCU, SMU and Baylor. Other than BYU, no BCS level religious school has the religious issue you allege. BYU refuses to play on Sundays, all other schools in BCS level play as scheduled. Only the California schools would object to adding Baylor, TCU and SMU, no other school or conference would care so long as all by-laws are met. (Ironically, USC was affiliated with the Methodists until the 1950's).

i think you are understating just how much religion impacts schools. smu & tcu have spent millions trying to rebrand themselves away from texas christian & southern methodist. in fact the TCU coach has gone on the record that "texas christian" hurts recruiting. the cali 4 would object to religious schools, but i think the b10 shares a lot of similar viewpoints with the cali schools. and another prime example, liberty the school that got passed over for georgia state and facing a sports scheduling embargo from numerous schools.

i think the going trend is that the schools are starting to pull away from religion right now a lot more than they were in the past and they are only going to get increasingly more hostile to it over the next decade. we are living in unprecedented times where we are seeing a huge shift in public policy/attitudes towards religion since the mid 2000s and i think a lot of these conferences/schools are starting to pick up on that

USC was religiously affiliated in the past?????? so were duke, northwestern, syracuse, & vanderbilt at one point