(06-21-2021 02:18 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 02:11 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 06:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  The B1G should have taken Pitt. Syracuse is actually a good athletic fit for the ACC. We would actually be much better off with BC, Syracuse and Maryland than what we currently have.

All you're saying is that Maryland is a more valuable athletic department than Pitt. That point is hard to dispute. The Big Ten agreed, and that is why Maryland is in the Big Ten.

Yeah, it's hard to read, "The Big Ten should have taken Pitt, because the ACC would be better off with Maryland than with Pitt" in a way that flatters Pitt.

_____________________

(06-12-2021 07:14 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Now let me ask you a question.

Why did the Big Ten invite UMCP over Syracuse? Cuse is smaller but the state of New York is much bigger than Maryland. Was the AAU a real reason? Or the Big Ten just wanted to stick it to the ACC?

That is a false dichotomy: (1) Yes, not just AAU but Maryland's status within the AAU is a real reason. But also, (2) the greater DC area is an area with a lot higher density of Big Ten alumni than upstate New York.

And (3) the "stick it to the ACC" motivation is likely to have been nil or negligible.

Yeah I kinda reached a conclusion that what the Big Ten was looking for is not the same as what the ACC was pursuing.

The ACC invited Cuse while Rutgers was available although Rutgers has better presence in NYC. And VT got in before Cuse. That was not a market based decision.

(06-11-2021 05:19 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 09:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  As for the Big 12, all the Oklahoma and Texas schools are happy where they are. WVU's first choice would probably be the SEC, but they would take ACC or Big 10 if offered. All offer better geography.

The Mountaineers need to be moved, just like several other teams, to get better cultural and geographical fit.

*Missouri to the Big 12 in exchange for West Virginia to the SEC*

other possibilities include:
*Pitt to the B1G in exchange for Maryland to the ACC*
*Louisville to the SEC in exchange for South Carolina to the ACC*
Nebraska returned to the Big 12


I'm not saying any of these things will happen, only that they need to happen for better cultural and geographical fit.

I can't imagine Penn State would be happy trading Pitt for Maryland.

(06-21-2021 02:11 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 06:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  The B1G should have taken Pitt. Syracuse is actually a good athletic fit for the ACC. We would actually be much better off with BC, Syracuse and Maryland than what we currently have.

All you're saying is that Maryland is a more valuable athletic department than Pitt. That point is hard to dispute. The Big Ten agreed, and that is why Maryland is in the Big Ten.

A large part of the most recent B1G expansion was to get BTN into more homes. Rutgers and Maryland do that, whereas Pitt doesn't.

(06-10-2021 11:37 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Big 12

ISU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
KU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
KSU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
WVU: would leave for the ACC if offered. Probably only P5 school outside the ACC whose first choice is the ACC
UT: would not leave the Big 12.
OU: would leave the Big 12 for the SEC or the BIG. I think their first choice is the SEC.
OK state: not sure. Maybe they would leave for the SEC if offered
TTU: not sure about TTU. Maybe they don’t want to leave.
TCU: would leave for the SEC if offered
Baylor: would leave for the SEC if offered

I'm thinking with the expanded playoffs coming into play in a couple seasons, I'm not sure any of the schools would want to leave outside WV, who rather be somewhere closer to campus.

It's a round robin league, that's not expensive to travel as some of the super conferences. With the CFP expansion, they would legitimately get 2 schools in every season. Every school has rights to it's tier 3 media and over time they can put it all together and launch a conference network.

Now will it ever compete with the SEC or BiG? Most likely never, but it will be better than the ACC or PAC deals.

(06-23-2021 08:17 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 11:37 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Big 12

ISU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
KU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
KSU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
WVU: would leave for the ACC if offered. Probably only P5 school outside the ACC whose first choice is the ACC
UT: would not leave the Big 12.
OU: would leave the Big 12 for the SEC or the BIG. I think their first choice is the SEC.
OK state: not sure. Maybe they would leave for the SEC if offered
TTU: not sure about TTU. Maybe they don’t want to leave.
TCU: would leave for the SEC if offered
Baylor: would leave for the SEC if offered

I'm thinking with the expanded playoffs coming into play in a couple seasons, I'm not sure any of the schools would want to leave outside WV, who rather be somewhere closer to campus.

It's a round robin league, that's not expensive to travel as some of the super conferences. With the CFP expansion, they would legitimately get 2 schools in every season. Every school has rights to it's tier 3 media and over time they can put it all together and launch a conference network.

Now will it ever compete with the SEC or BiG? Most likely never, but it will be better than the ACC or PAC deals.

The real question re: The Big 12 is: Will ESPN and FOX continue to overpay the conference for media rights? Indications are not looking too good for the Big 12. FOX passed on their opportunity to broadcast the Big 12 championship game and without their regional sports outlets allowed ESPN to populate ESPN+ until the end of their current contract for a song. Now we have learned the conference wanted to open talks on a new contract extension and the Media guys weren't interested.
If the money dries up, there will be movement. The "value schools" of the Big 12 will land on their feet, the others will settle for what they can get.

The AAC has only 10 full members plus Navy (football only). Theoretically the AAC could accommodate up to six new full members.

(06-23-2021 08:17 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 11:37 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Big 12

ISU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
KU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
KSU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
WVU: would leave for the ACC if offered. Probably only P5 school outside the ACC whose first choice is the ACC
UT: would not leave the Big 12.
OU: would leave the Big 12 for the SEC or the BIG. I think their first choice is the SEC.
OK state: not sure. Maybe they would leave for the SEC if offered
TTU: not sure about TTU. Maybe they don’t want to leave.
TCU: would leave for the SEC if offered
Baylor: would leave for the SEC if offered

I'm thinking with the expanded playoffs coming into play in a couple seasons, I'm not sure any of the schools would want to leave outside WV, who rather be somewhere closer to campus.

It's a round robin league, that's not expensive to travel as some of the super conferences. With the CFP expansion, they would legitimately get 2 schools in every season. Every school has rights to it's tier 3 media and over time they can put it all together and launch a conference network.

Now will it ever compete with the SEC or BiG? Most likely never, but it will be better than the ACC or PAC deals.

If the Big 10 or SEC keep divisions, travel for most of the Big 12 schools won't be much more than the current Big 12. Iowa State, Kansas, or Kansas State? Iowa, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc with only a few trips to the Eastern Division schools. Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, or the Texas schools? Texas A&M, LSU, Arkansas with only a few trips to South Carolina, Georgia etc.

(06-24-2021 04:48 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 08:17 PM)Thiefery Wrote:  

(06-10-2021 11:37 AM)random asian guy Wrote:  Big 12

ISU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
KU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
KSU: would leave for the Big Ten if offered
WVU: would leave for the ACC if offered. Probably only P5 school outside the ACC whose first choice is the ACC
UT: would not leave the Big 12.
OU: would leave the Big 12 for the SEC or the BIG. I think their first choice is the SEC.
OK state: not sure. Maybe they would leave for the SEC if offered
TTU: not sure about TTU. Maybe they don’t want to leave.
TCU: would leave for the SEC if offered
Baylor: would leave for the SEC if offered

I'm thinking with the expanded playoffs coming into play in a couple seasons, I'm not sure any of the schools would want to leave outside WV, who rather be somewhere closer to campus.

It's a round robin league, that's not expensive to travel as some of the super conferences. With the CFP expansion, they would legitimately get 2 schools in every season. Every school has rights to it's tier 3 media and over time they can put it all together and launch a conference network.

Now will it ever compete with the SEC or BiG? Most likely never, but it will be better than the ACC or PAC deals.

The real question re: The Big 12 is: Will ESPN and FOX continue to overpay the conference for media rights? Indications are not looking too good for the Big 12. FOX passed on their opportunity to broadcast the Big 12 championship game and without their regional sports outlets allowed ESPN to populate ESPN+ until the end of their current contract for a song. Now we have learned the conference wanted to open talks on a new contract extension and the Media guys weren't interested.
If the money dries up, there will be movement. The "value schools" of the Big 12 will land on their feet, the others will settle for what they can get.

The AAC has only 10 full members plus Navy (football only). Theoretically the AAC could accommodate up to six new full members.

You mean coming off a pandemic season that had all viewership numbers down across the board? If things bounce back this season, I'm pretty certain that next summer negotiations will be revisited.

(06-23-2021 04:20 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 02:11 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 06:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  The B1G should have taken Pitt. Syracuse is actually a good athletic fit for the ACC. We would actually be much better off with BC, Syracuse and Maryland than what we currently have.

All you're saying is that Maryland is a more valuable athletic department than Pitt. That point is hard to dispute. The Big Ten agreed, and that is why Maryland is in the Big Ten.

A large part of the most recent B1G expansion was to get BTN into more homes. Rutgers and Maryland do that, whereas Pitt doesn't.

Maryland's on-field performance in football has been better and hoops has been infinitely better than Pitt, and that tends to help TV ratings of their games. DC area is also big for recruiting both football and basketball. Maryland is the most valuable of the Big Ten's three recent additions, not just more valuable than Pitt.

(06-25-2021 02:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 04:20 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 02:11 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 06:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  The B1G should have taken Pitt. Syracuse is actually a good athletic fit for the ACC. We would actually be much better off with BC, Syracuse and Maryland than what we currently have.

All you're saying is that Maryland is a more valuable athletic department than Pitt. That point is hard to dispute. The Big Ten agreed, and that is why Maryland is in the Big Ten.

A large part of the most recent B1G expansion was to get BTN into more homes. Rutgers and Maryland do that, whereas Pitt doesn't.

Maryland's on-field performance in football has been better and hoops has been infinitely better than Pitt, and that tends to help TV ratings of their games. DC area is also big for recruiting both football and basketball. Maryland is the most valuable of the Big Ten's three recent additions, not just more valuable than Pitt.

Why do you think that we want to trade Pitt for Maryland ?

(06-25-2021 02:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 02:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 04:20 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 02:11 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 06:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  The B1G should have taken Pitt. Syracuse is actually a good athletic fit for the ACC. We would actually be much better off with BC, Syracuse and Maryland than what we currently have.

All you're saying is that Maryland is a more valuable athletic department than Pitt. That point is hard to dispute. The Big Ten agreed, and that is why Maryland is in the Big Ten.

A large part of the most recent B1G expansion was to get BTN into more homes. Rutgers and Maryland do that, whereas Pitt doesn't.

Maryland's on-field performance in football has been better and hoops has been infinitely better than Pitt, and that tends to help TV ratings of their games. DC area is also big for recruiting both football and basketball. Maryland is the most valuable of the Big Ten's three recent additions, not just more valuable than Pitt.

Why do you think that we want to trade Pitt for Maryland ?

How about Rutgirls for Pitt?

(06-25-2021 03:33 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 02:51 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(06-25-2021 02:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 04:20 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 02:11 AM)Wedge Wrote:  All you're saying is that Maryland is a more valuable athletic department than Pitt. That point is hard to dispute. The Big Ten agreed, and that is why Maryland is in the Big Ten.

A large part of the most recent B1G expansion was to get BTN into more homes. Rutgers and Maryland do that, whereas Pitt doesn't.

Maryland's on-field performance in football has been better and hoops has been infinitely better than Pitt, and that tends to help TV ratings of their games. DC area is also big for recruiting both football and basketball. Maryland is the most valuable of the Big Ten's three recent additions, not just more valuable than Pitt.

Why do you think that we want to trade Pitt for Maryland ?

How about Rutgirls for Pitt?

(06-25-2021 02:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 04:20 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 02:11 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 06:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  The B1G should have taken Pitt. Syracuse is actually a good athletic fit for the ACC. We would actually be much better off with BC, Syracuse and Maryland than what we currently have.

All you're saying is that Maryland is a more valuable athletic department than Pitt. That point is hard to dispute. The Big Ten agreed, and that is why Maryland is in the Big Ten.

A large part of the most recent B1G expansion was to get BTN into more homes. Rutgers and Maryland do that, whereas Pitt doesn't.

Maryland's on-field performance in football has been better and hoops has been infinitely better than Pitt, and that tends to help TV ratings of their games. DC area is also big for recruiting both football and basketball. Maryland is the most valuable of the Big Ten's three recent additions, not just more valuable than Pitt.

Does UMCP really draw more viewers than Pitt? I haven’t seen any concrete evidence. Wahoowa84’s calculations show UMCP’s viewership is actually lower (and Rutgers’ number is even lower). Pitt’s football attendance number is also better than UMCP’s.

I believe the addition of UMCP did help the DC area cable companies to carry the BTN. But assuming the BTN is stabilized and the cord cutting continues, I am not sure if UMCP is that much much valuable.

(06-12-2021 05:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:35 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:56 AM)schmolik Wrote:  The ACC had just invited Syracuse (and Pittsburgh) in September 2011. Would either school leave a conference they just accepted an invitation to? TCU did but that was from a conference that was a poor geographic fit to a dream geographic fit. I would rather the Big Ten have taken Pittsburgh or Syracuse or even UConn over Rutgers. I'll never know whether the Big Ten would have preferred Rutgers over Syracuse or Pittsburgh but the fact is the ACC got to them first.

True. But it was more than the geographic fit. The Big East was in the process of falling apart with many of the schools looking for the fastest exit possible. And the Frogs weren't actual members in the sense of actually playing games and earning revenue. And the Big 12 had (and has) much larger revenue streams. It did cost us $5 million though. (Not that TCU doesn't have money...)

Well Syracuse and Pittsburgh were in the exact situation with the ACC that TCU was with the Big East. I think if the Big Ten offered Pittsburgh an invite they would've preferred them over the ACC. Syracuse could go either way. Then again, if you're the Big Ten do you take a team that the ACC just added or a long time member? Would Syracuse and/or Pittsburgh have been subject to the same financial penalties that Maryland was? It's clear Rutgers was the easiest add of all among the four (they also could've added UConn, Temple, or Cincinnati as old Big East/AAC members.

The Big Ten's ultimate goal was to build a bridge into Virginia and North Carolina. Maryland was the first step.

Syracuse would have been a decent addition, but Rutgers helped them secure a presence in NYC and NJ at the same time.

Debatable as to which school would offer more penetration in NY, but Rutgers was an AAU and a large state school. Syracuse was a private with a smaller enrollment.

This hints at it. There are lots of Big 10 alums in NYC and DC. Rutgers and Maryland allow access to them. Syracuse, not nearly as much.

(06-25-2021 02:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-23-2021 04:20 PM)UpStreamRedTeam Wrote:  

(06-21-2021 02:11 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 06:40 PM)XLance Wrote:  The B1G should have taken Pitt. Syracuse is actually a good athletic fit for the ACC. We would actually be much better off with BC, Syracuse and Maryland than what we currently have.

All you're saying is that Maryland is a more valuable athletic department than Pitt. That point is hard to dispute. The Big Ten agreed, and that is why Maryland is in the Big Ten.

A large part of the most recent B1G expansion was to get BTN into more homes. Rutgers and Maryland do that, whereas Pitt doesn't.

Maryland's on-field performance in football has been better and hoops has been infinitely better than Pitt, and that tends to help TV ratings of their games. DC area is also big for recruiting both football and basketball. Maryland is the most valuable of the Big Ten's three recent additions, not just more valuable than Pitt.

The statement “Maryland’s on-field performance in football has been better” makes no sense. Maryland football has fared poorly and had constant controversy since it moved to the BIG. Maryland has averaged 4 wins per season in its BIG tenure. Randy Edsall, DJ Durkin and Jordan McNair are the three individuals associated with Terps & BIG football. Attendance is plummeting, donations are shrinking and athletic department revenues are falling precipitously.

On the other hand, Pitt football is the model of consistency in the ACC. The Panthers average 7 wins per season and have made 6 bowl games. The renewal of rivalries with Miami and VT has helped the assimilation into the ACC. Even with lower ACC media payouts (compared to the BIG), Pitt athletic department revenue is now exceeding Maryland’s revenue.

(06-30-2021 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  This hints at it. There are lots of Big 10 alums in NYC and DC. Rutgers and Maryland allow access to them. Syracuse, not nearly as much.

And while not a dominant factor, recruiting grounds are much more likely to be an issue in the only P5 conference without one of the three, or indeed top five, football recruiting states in its territory. AFAIU, New Jersey is better football recruiting grounds than downstate New York, upstate New York, or New England.

(06-30-2021 11:26 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 05:02 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 12:40 PM)schmolik Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 11:35 AM)Jared7 Wrote:  

(06-12-2021 09:56 AM)schmolik Wrote:  The ACC had just invited Syracuse (and Pittsburgh) in September 2011. Would either school leave a conference they just accepted an invitation to? TCU did but that was from a conference that was a poor geographic fit to a dream geographic fit. I would rather the Big Ten have taken Pittsburgh or Syracuse or even UConn over Rutgers. I'll never know whether the Big Ten would have preferred Rutgers over Syracuse or Pittsburgh but the fact is the ACC got to them first.

True. But it was more than the geographic fit. The Big East was in the process of falling apart with many of the schools looking for the fastest exit possible. And the Frogs weren't actual members in the sense of actually playing games and earning revenue. And the Big 12 had (and has) much larger revenue streams. It did cost us $5 million though. (Not that TCU doesn't have money...)

Well Syracuse and Pittsburgh were in the exact situation with the ACC that TCU was with the Big East. I think if the Big Ten offered Pittsburgh an invite they would've preferred them over the ACC. Syracuse could go either way. Then again, if you're the Big Ten do you take a team that the ACC just added or a long time member? Would Syracuse and/or Pittsburgh have been subject to the same financial penalties that Maryland was? It's clear Rutgers was the easiest add of all among the four (they also could've added UConn, Temple, or Cincinnati as old Big East/AAC members.

The Big Ten's ultimate goal was to build a bridge into Virginia and North Carolina. Maryland was the first step.

Syracuse would have been a decent addition, but Rutgers helped them secure a presence in NYC and NJ at the same time.

Debatable as to which school would offer more penetration in NY, but Rutgers was an AAU and a large state school. Syracuse was a private with a smaller enrollment.

This hints at it. There are lots of Big 10 alums in NYC and DC. Rutgers and Maryland allow access to them. Syracuse, not nearly as much.

It is interesting that even with all those Big 10 alums in NYC and DC, Rutgers and Maryland lag behind Pitt in terms of viewership and football attendance....