(04-17-2013 08:09 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I want to make it clear that I'm neither calling Slive and idiot or Swofford a genius. I just tire of this discussion where every single thing Slive, Delany and Scott do is sheer genius of unprecedented proportions whereas anything the others do is proof of their incompetence and/or corruptness. There has to be more intelligent discussion than that.

For example, I continue to believe that the B1G's decision to add Rutgers and Maryland when they did was a mistake and may well prove to have been an ENORMOUS mistake. If what some are saying is true, they could have had Florida State and Georgia Tech. If that's true then their decision to take the Northern pair was downright moronic, IMHO.

People always counter that with, "It was driven by television markets and NYC and DC are two of the largest markets in the country." I understand that shallow argument but Atlanta is also a HUGE television market and Florida State would have gotten the BTN on throughout the Sunshine State. That would have equaled even more markets. Also, college football is so much more popular in the South than it is in the North that the viewership wouldn't have been close. Also, Maryland and New Jersey are good states at providing talent but they are nowhere near what an entree into Florida and Georgia would have provided.

I'm sorry but it was dumb, dumb, dumb.

Finally, if this is all about television markets then how does that jibe with the league's decision just two years earlier to pass on Missouri - with two top 35 markets - to add major market-less Nebraska? Let me guess, Nebraska is different because of their historical success, right? Well, then why doesn't that also apply to Florida State?

Dumb. At the very least, extremely inconsistent.

And if rendering the ACC unstable was part of the goal, as we have consistently been told is the case, which would have accomplished that more effectively, losing two of their best football playing schools or losing one perennial bottom dweller and a school from another league?

Dumb.

If what we have been told is the truth then taking Rutgers and Maryland over Florida State and Georgia Tech was a curious decision to say the least. However, because it was Jim Delany and the Big Ten making such a bizarre choice, it is lauded as "bold" and "daring" with "an eye towards the future."

That's all a bunch of bullschitt from rah-rah fanboys and a lazy, never rock the boat media.

Spot on here Dr I......+2

(04-17-2013 11:51 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The difference is two fold.
1. CBS owns the right to a portion of the SEC's Tier 1 rights. In the ACC ESPN owns them all.

2. I think the part that Mr. SEC finds brilliant is that the SEC owns the majority interest in its network. ESPN is now the broker of the the third tier content, not its owner. The distinction may not seem like much Yinz, but it is. Mr. SEC found that model to be more flexible should market forces change the delivery modes in the future.

That's about it.

Your defense of Swafford using this line of argumentation is a valid one with one noteworthy exception. Setting up his son's success with the Raycom deal was suspect. A worthy and interesting post.

JR, it's Swofford.

Why doesn't anyone ever talk about John Swofford's daughter who was a soccer player at Florida State?

Thanks, it's corrected in the original post. Is there something we "need" to know about his daughter.

(04-17-2013 10:53 AM)JRsec Wrote:  The difference is two fold.
1. CBS owns the right to a portion of the SEC's Tier 1 rights. In the ACC ESPN owns them all.

2. I think the part that Mr. SEC finds brilliant is that the SEC owns the majority interest in its network. ESPN is now the broker of the the third tier content, not its owner. The distinction may not seem like much Yinz, but it is. Mr. SEC found that model to be more flexible should market forces change the delivery modes in the future.

That's about it.

Your defense of Swofford using this line of argumentation is a valid one with one noteworthy exception. Setting up his son's success with the Raycom deal was suspect. A worthy and interesting post.

And the SEC now controls the Digital Networks as well if I read the info correctly. They will start bundling the products now...

(04-17-2013 08:09 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  For example, I continue to believe that the B1G's decision to add Rutgers and Maryland when they did was a mistake and may well prove to have been an ENORMOUS mistake. If what some are saying is true, they could have had Florida State and Georgia Tech. If that's true then their decision to take the Northern pair was downright moronic, IMHO.

"If what some are saying is true" is a premise for any conclusion you can invent. There's no particular reason to believe those who claim that the Big Ten "could have" taken FSU and GTech and took Rutgers and Maryland instead. It is, indeed, quite reasonable to believe that FSU is early on in the process of thinking through their realignment opportunities, and its the move by Maryland that got the ball rolling on that process.

(04-17-2013 11:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

Agreed. Maryland, even if they have been subpar on-the-field lately, is a no-brainer from a conference realignment perspective. Rutgers is the risky bet by the Big Ten.

If you look at it that way, the Big Ten's missed opportunity was in not getting Missouri to go along with Maryland, because Missouri > Rutgers. The Big Ten could have brought in Missouri and Maryland at the same time as Nebraska.

(04-17-2013 11:21 AM)JRsec Wrote:  I see the contract as a capitulation to the draconian control that is now freely wielded by corporate hegemony. In other words he is making the best of a bad situation. I still admire Delany for his efforts.

I see your point. I think you over-rate the power of the media companies vis-a-vis the top conferences a bit, but that's it.

(04-17-2013 11:36 AM)orangefan Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 11:10 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 11:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

Agreed. Maryland, even if they have been subpar on-the-field lately, is a no-brainer from a conference realignment perspective. Rutgers is the risky bet by the Big Ten.

I have no idea why Maryland is disparaged around here. It has everything any conference could want- it's a huge flagship located 8 miles from the most powerful government in the world, strong academics and research position, a huge base of high-earning alumni, a rich old-money basketball tradition and a long football history as well. Maryland is a jewel from every angle.

The B1G's addition of UMD resembles the SEC's addition of Missouri -- great school, good sized state, decent athletic program, overall solid addition. The SEC's addition of Texas A&M, by comparison, was a huge home run. The State of Texas has 27 million residents, 8 million TV HH, and is the single biggest source of fb recruits in the country, and TAMU has the statewide support to leverage these assets for the SEC.

I think you are speaking too much the language of "markets". But even if we speak that language, Maryland is a gem. The DC/Baltimore area is a very big area and it is a very high-income area. It is a very rich soil for the B1G to plow.

(04-17-2013 03:02 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 11:05 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

As far as the Big Ten is concerned, I think them taking Maryland was actually pretty smart. What they have done is made it where if they could get UVA, thereby forcing VT to go SEC, they have split the ACC in half, making it extremely unstable and unsustainable. BC, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh become an island basically.

Agreed. Maryland, even if they have been subpar on-the-field lately, is a no-brainer from a conference realignment perspective. Rutgers is the risky bet by the Big Ten.

If you look at it that way, the Big Ten's missed opportunity was in not getting Missouri to go along with Maryland, because Missouri > Rutgers. The Big Ten could have brought in Missouri and Maryland at the same time as Nebraska.

And maybe Mizzou, MAryland, and Nebraska, along with two teams now from the ACC would bring the B1G to the sweet sixteen number. Oh, that's right. It's that big NY market that never watches TV. Blown chances...Delaney has not proved himself to me but I guess he doesn't have to.

Hilarious, a conference that expands with Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers is run by a bunch of dumb schitts that shows it's weakness with such expansion but a conference that expands with Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville is just as strong and is run by genius's despite the fact that it hasn't landed deals like the other conferences?

Let's not forget that your conference has lost Two of it's founding members and yet here you are, and in reference to Yinzer who's school isn't even a member yet, trying to yet again make it seem like you know what the phuck you are talking about and that everyone else who disagrees are idiots.

Slive is in charge of a conference that is actually stable and making top money. Yes he does not get an award for efficiency but the SEC Network is an actual and viable entity now. Your supposed ACC Network is a phantom. It is all talk right now and yet you are using it to prove how smart the ACC is ran? Incredible!!!

(04-17-2013 02:15 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:09 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  For example, I continue to believe that the B1G's decision to add Rutgers and Maryland when they did was a mistake and may well prove to have been an ENORMOUS mistake. If what some are saying is true, they could have had Florida State and Georgia Tech. If that's true then their decision to take the Northern pair was downright moronic, IMHO.

"If what some are saying is true" is a premise for any conclusion you can invent. There's no particular reason to believe those who claim that the Big Ten "could have" taken FSU and GTech and took Rutgers and Maryland instead. It is, indeed, quite reasonable to believe that FSU is early on in the process of thinking through their realignment opportunities, and its the move by Maryland that got the ball rolling on that process.

Why?

Why would Maryland's leaving the ACC have any impact whatsoever on Florida State's decision regarding conference alignment? This is another commonly espoused sentiment that, when one really stops to think about it, makes no sense.

Let's draw a parallel. Let's say that tomorrow Purdue announces that it is going to the SEC to be a part of that league's exciting new revenue opportunities. Do you think that would have an impact on Ohio State's Big Ten status?

Of course it wouldn't. Ohio State would make that decision based on its own complex set of metrics and the loss of Purdue would have almost no impact on that decision one way or the other. I can assure you that is extremely similar re: Maryland and the rest of the ACC.

My point is not to disparage Maryland or Rutgers or anyone else. I think they are fine institutions and will eventually become valued members of their new league.

My point was to point out how ridiculous the mentality is regarding conference alignment. People are constantly trying to reverse engineer the answers to fit their preconceived conclusions and would appear to be willing to do whatever it takes to justify said conclusions even when it is in DIRECT contrast with diametrically opposed conclusions when other leagues followed this EXACT SAME TEMPLATE.

Here's what I have thought all along and continue to believe. I don't really believe that Delany is dumb. How could anyone who has followed his career possibly come to that nonsensical conclusion? However, I do believe that he - and a lot of writers who cover this stuff - are being extremely disingenuous.

I believe that this is, was and will always be almost entirely about the B1G's everlasting lust for Notre Dame. I believe that the Irish are Delany's "white whale," as it were. Nothing I have seen or heard in the past five years leads me to believe that there's even the slightest chance that I might be wrong.

I'm not wrong. I know it and so too does anyone else with a brain and a modicum of impartiality.

Also, I should point out that it's no surprise that the B1G covets Notre Dame. The Irish are the most popular brand in college football and adding them would forever put the B1G above everyone else financially.

No other school or combination of schools would accomplish that same objective. Not North Carolina and Virginia; not NC State and Virginia Tech and not even Florida State and Georgia Tech.

This is about Notre Dame - the last true national program.

ND's folks have long and adamantly told anyone who will listen how incredibly important their "Subway Alumni" were to that program and most of those "Subway Alums" happen to be located in the heavily Catholic Northeast United States. I live in Pittsburgh and know it well. On my street there are currently four ND flags flying outside right now and only one of those families has any actual connection to that university - their middle son attends school there. The rest are basically just either uber-Catholics, people who think its a prestigious brand to be associated with or Catholics who like college football but don't have an affinity for either Pitt or Penn State. I'll bet you that at least one or two of them have never set foot on the school's South Bend, IN campus.

That phenomenon plays itself out throughout neighborhoods up and down the Mid-Atlantic and New England states and it was always what made the Big East such a PERFECT cultural fit for the Irish. It's also what made the ACC attractive to ND when the BE fell apart.

Notre Dame does not view itself as a Midwestern school that happens to be Catholic. It sees itself as THE national Catholic university that happens to be located in the heart of the Midwest. That is a distinction that is lost on too many people in this discussion but you must understand that concept to fully understand why Delany will die before he achieves his ambitions regarding Notre Dame.

Incidentally, I think Penn State is the exact opposite. It is not an Eastern university that happens to compete in the B1G. Rather, it is a prototypical B1G university that happens to be located on that league's Eastern flank (for now).

Spend some time in East Lansing or Bloomington or West LaFayette and then go to Syracuse or Pitt or Temple and tell me which Penn State fits in with better culturally. It's not even close. Now, do the same with those towns and Notre Dame. That too is not close but it goes the other way. Boston College and Notre Dame couldn't be more similar culturally as compared with say, Michigan or Ohio State, etc. The same is true of Virginia, Duke, etc.

I think Delany recognized that Notre Dame was sincere in its desire to play in front of its "Subway Alums" so he added two programs that he thought would help make his league more attractive to the Irish and take away two "markets" from the ACC in the process.

I would bet the farm that all of this stuff about North Carolina to the Big Ten one week, Virginia the next and Florida State the week after that is all an attempt to get the Irish to jump first.

That's not going to happen and therefore neither will expansion for the foreseeable future.

I believe that the B1G's next major pitch to the Irish will be, "Look, now you can play in from of your 'Subway Alums' in Pittsburgh and Philly thanks to Penn State, Baltimore and Washington thanks to Maryland and New York City thanks to Rutgers. All that is left is for you and Boston College to come in as teams No. 15 and 16 and we will dominate the entire Northeast, which will in turn give us control of college football going forward."

That's what I see as the end game here and I also do not see ND going for it. However that is why, I believe, Maryland and Rutgers were chosen when they were instead of more logical (singular) additions like Florida State and Georgia Tech.

(04-17-2013 04:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Hilarious, a conference that expands with Penn State, Nebraska, Maryland and Rutgers is run by a bunch of dumb schitts that shows it's weakness with such expansion but a conference that expands with Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Georgia Tech, Florida State, Syracuse, Pittsburgh and Louisville is just as strong and is run by genius's despite the fact that it hasn't landed deals like the other conferences?

No. Not even close. You missed the point by a country mile. I'd explain it further but before I do I would encourage you to re-read what I have actually written and not the nonsense that you inferred and then come back and we'll talk.

Quote:Let's not forget that your conference has lost Two of it's founding members and yet here you are, and in reference to Yinzer who's school isn't even a member yet, trying to yet again make it seem like you know what the phuck you are talking about and that everyone else who disagrees are idiots.

Whoa. I definitely don't think that at all. The people whom I think are idiots are those who laud Slive for going all in with ESPN but then castigate Swofford for doing the same. I definitely think those people are idiots. Do you know why? Because people who do that are idiots. Big, flaming idiots.

Quote:Slive is in charge of a conference that is actually stable and making top money. Yes he does not get an award for efficiency but the SEC Network is an actual and viable entity now. Your supposed ACC Network is a phantom. It is all talk right now and yet you are using it to prove how smart the ACC is ran? Incredible!!!

I'm not doing anything of the sort, you buffoon. I could care less who has the smartest commissioner and who has the dumbest. What are you, 12?

This isn't some sort of a goofy, "My dad could beat up your dad" type of deal. It's just to explicitly point out how ridiculously reactionary people tend to be in this discussion.

Actually, that is my greatest frustration with college athletics as a rule. Even more than the blatant profiteering on the backs of the kids who actually create said wealth and the wanton corruption throughout the landscape, what I hate most about college athletics is that people tend to be just so phucking provincial about everything that they lose objectivity. As a result it becomes difficult to have an objective discussion on any matter without fanboys like you freaking the phuck out. I'm sure that at any minute you are going to show me your alma mater's logo tattooed on your calf.

I get it.

Relax, Francis. Your guy is the smartest, toughest, bravest, most honorable commissioner of all-time. Everyone else pales in comparison and always will.

Sigh.

Say what you will about pro sports and their fans but at least fans of pro sports can discuss their teams more objectively - warts and all.

So tell me, just for kicks. What are some of Jim Delany's biggest gaffes since taking over as commish of the Big Ten all those years ago? Or has he been infallible?

Jim Delany's biggest gaffe? MF'n Notre Dame and having a stiffy for them.

Him and the Presidents have driven Notre Dame to spite them. They drove Notre Dame to the ACC and in turn had to expand earlier than desirable in order to counter them.

The Big Ten leadership is very very very egotistical and at times that is their biggest gaffe.


As far as me being a major fanboy? Dude...I have a feeling you just projected a whole horde of BS upon me. I have many of the same frustrations as you do with the fanboys. I am not a Fanboy of the Big Ten, I just realize they are in a very strong position. I don't see how that is wrong of me to say.

I do get what you are saying about the SEC and ACC but the difference is that as soon as the SEC did so they were able to get a Network going with ESPN. The ACC has had this deal with ESPN for how long now but with no Network to show for it?

By no means do I think the SEC is led by brilliance. Slive led the Conference USA and then got lucky and fell into the easiest damn Commissioner job out of all of them. He hasn't really had to do a damn thing. He has had his expansions basically just fall into his lap. So do not count me as one of the Slive Cheerleaders. I am truly impressed by Delany's acumen. He has been in this game for decades and has earned that kind of respect. That does not mean that he is perfect either though. His job would be incredibly difficult, trying to keep all those Presidents in line and agreeing together enough for things to get done.

As far as the rest of your diatribe of insults you threw at me, I think that only adds weight to what I was saying about you Yinzer. Take that as you will.

(04-17-2013 07:56 AM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  In the attached article, Mr. SEC makes the case that the new SEC Network is positively brilliant because of the relationship that has been forged between the league and ESPN.

It goes on to laud the SEC's decision to buy back all of its Tier III rights and bundle them together.

Here's a quote:

"The SportsBusiness Daily reported on Monday that the SEC has bought back all of its third-tier television rights from groups like IMG, Learfield Sports, and CBS Collegiate Sports Properties. In addition, the conference also bought back its digital rights from XOS Digital, the group currently behind the SEC Digital Network and SECSports.com.

Moving forward, ESPN will be allowed to sell all of those rights together. Instead of XOS Digital selling this chunk, IMG selling that chunk, and ESPN selling another chunk, now the league will have an ESPN sales force packaging all its products.

That aspect of the deal — even more than the new SEC Network alone — will fill the conference’s coffers like never before. The television network will be a big part of it, to be sure, but it’s the ability to bundle television, digital (internet), and syndication rights together that is at the heart of this new SEC/ESPN coupling."

Here's what I don't understand. All I have heard and read over the past few years on this board and in the media is what a flaming (and possibly corrupt) idiot John Swofford was for doing what would appear for all the world to be THE EXACT SAME PHUCKING THING!

Same company. Same model. Same agreement. Same every phucking thing!!! When one does it, he's a "fool" and an "idiot" who has doomed his league forever. When the other does it a year or so later, he's a "genius" and a "visionary" who has set his league up for permanent success.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

Well, there was one significant difference in their respective approaches. Swofford and company had the foresight to bundle things in the first place whereas Slive and his group did not - which forced them to buy back those rights.

Go ahead parse away. Just make sure that you use a whole bunch phony math when you do it so that your blatant double standard appears to have more legitimacy than it otherwise might.

Your post here could be dead on, or off by a mile. According to Mr. SEC today, 4/17/13, the actual ownership of the SEC/ESPN network could take 1 of 3 forms and the third form could be altered mid contract. It's worth a read. Either way your assumption that it is the same deal as Swofford's and my statement that the majority ownership would be with the SEC are both premature and have yet to be announced formally and apparently nobody knows for sure which form it will take until Slive makes the televised announcement next week.

Do you guys still think that passing on Florida State and Georgia Tech in favor of Maryland and Rutgers was a good idea? Because I do not see things that way at all.

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

They are both in about the same point of the contract and negotiating period. Both have about 12-14 years left. That's actually the sort of thing the OP is talking about

(04-17-2013 10:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The gap of Maryland/Virginia is a lot bigger than you think. Not physically but culturally.

Having lived in both places (Maryland and one of the schools of a "different culture") , and attended one of the school sin question, this isn't really true.

(04-17-2013 04:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Let's not forget that your conference has lost Two of it's founding members and yet here you are, and in reference to Yinzer who's school isn't even a member yet, trying to yet again make it seem like you know what the phuck you are talking about and that everyone else who disagrees are idiots.

Eh, so did the SEC. And the Big XII (they actually lost 3 of 8). Oh, and the Big Ten lost one too. Don't really see what that matters.

(04-22-2013 04:50 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(04-17-2013 08:38 AM)stever20 Wrote:  it's an interesting agruement. I think one major difference between the two is Swofford doing it at the beginning of the negotiating period, while Slive doing it at the end of the period(so able to get full value). So the concept being good, but Slive able to fully monetize it(or at least more fully monetize it).

They are both in about the same point of the contract and negotiating period. Both have about 12-14 years left. That's actually the sort of thing the OP is talking about

(04-17-2013 10:45 AM)stever20 Wrote:  The gap of Maryland/Virginia is a lot bigger than you think. Not physically but culturally.

Having lived in both places (Maryland and one of the schools of a "different culture") , and attended one of the school sin question, this isn't really true.

(04-17-2013 04:19 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Let's not forget that your conference has lost Two of it's founding members and yet here you are, and in reference to Yinzer who's school isn't even a member yet, trying to yet again make it seem like you know what the phuck you are talking about and that everyone else who disagrees are idiots.

Eh, so did the SEC. And the Big XII (they actually lost 3 of 8). Oh, and the Big Ten lost one too. Don't really see what that matters.

The Big Ten did not lose a founding member to another conference. That founding member is still part of the conference's CIC. All they did was stop playing Division 1 sports. Very big difference there that you purposefully chose to not illustrate. Nice try.