(06-11-2013 05:00 PM)Cardinals Wrote:  Because the football schools finally made their influence known, and the rest of the league was feeling a bit shaky after losing a charter member. No way if Louisville were in the B12 and WVU were available would the ACC have taken anybody else. FSU, Clemson etc. would've exploded had that happened.

I agree, the only reason UL got in over Connecticut was because of FSU and Clemson's assertion of power over Tobacco Road. The academics between UL and WVU are not that far off and WVU has a much more storied football program. WVU would have been a no brainer, perhaps Cincy solely because of academics/research but that would have been a big surprise.

(06-11-2013 02:37 PM)bigblueblindness Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 02:30 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  Staples did little "balancing" as he claims if he gives Rutgers a D. They may be the biggest winner in realignment. Just compare their 2013 football schedule with the one they play in 2014.

Yes, Rutgers to the B1G is a huge winner, but the B1G getting Rutgers still has a whole lot of question marks, and the recent headlines from Rutgers does not help. The grade goes both ways. Rutgers could as easily be an F for them as an A at this point.

From the Rutgers perspective, it's an A++++++, from the Big Ten perspective, probably a C.....great market, horrible sports.

(06-11-2013 04:17 PM)ecuacc4ever Wrote:  4) PAC-12
Had the PAC added Colorado fresh off its National Title several decades ago, this would be a HUGE get.

CU's football title was two decades ago (1990 season), and the Pac did invite CU a few years after that (1994). CU's regents voted to decline that invitation.

(06-11-2013 02:03 PM)BullsFanInTX Wrote:  USF, UC, and UConn: F (unfortunately)

They didn't go anywhere, so why would they get a realignment grade, they're in the same conference still.

(06-11-2013 02:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think he's balancing what it is for the conference with what it is for the school...

so for like a Rutgers- it's a A+ obviously for Rutgers but then a pretty big ? for the Big Ten. I don't really see it being a D overall as an A+ and a F would average out to a C.

I think as far as the point that certain schools haven't joined the conferences yet- while this is true- look at it from a Pitt/Syr/Lou perspective. Because after they joined the ACC- ACC went from making 13 mil a year up to 18-20 mil a year. So frankly, I'd if I had been doing this exercise would have given those schools all A's quite frankly using the metric that they were supposedly using. It's great for the schools, and allowing the conference to make 50% more per school, I don't know how in the world it's anything but great for the conference. Really makes no sense at all.

Thank you. A+F=C, was going to be my argument. The BIG is going to make out very well from having RU on board. There are MANY BIG SCHOOL ALUMNI living in NJ & NY. Our ticket sales for revenue sports is already way up thanks to BIG school alumni buying in early. We should have started stadium expansion to be ready for 2014. TV rating for BIG games in the NY and Philly markets will do just fine. This is at least a C for the BIG. Making the overall grade B.

(06-11-2013 05:57 PM)mikeinsec127 Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 02:43 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I think he's balancing what it is for the conference with what it is for the school...

so for like a Rutgers- it's a A+ obviously for Rutgers but then a pretty big ? for the Big Ten. I don't really see it being a D overall as an A+ and a F would average out to a C.

I think as far as the point that certain schools haven't joined the conferences yet- while this is true- look at it from a Pitt/Syr/Lou perspective. Because after they joined the ACC- ACC went from making 13 mil a year up to 18-20 mil a year. So frankly, I'd if I had been doing this exercise would have given those schools all A's quite frankly using the metric that they were supposedly using. It's great for the schools, and allowing the conference to make 50% more per school, I don't know how in the world it's anything but great for the conference. Really makes no sense at all.

Thank you. A+F=C, was going to be my argument. The BIG is going to make out very well from having RU on board. There are MANY BIG SCHOOL ALUMNI living in NJ & NY. Our ticket sales for revenue sports is already way up thanks to BIG school alumni buying in early. We should have started stadium expansion to be ready for 2014. TV rating for BIG games in the NY and Philly markets will do just fine. This is at least a C for the BIG. Making the overall grade B.

Bottom line on Rutgers...they hit the lottery...

I think it isn't so much A + F = C.

Looking at his comments, I think a big part of his grades are an estimation of which moves are going to be "successful" (recruiting wise and transitively, on the field). I'm reading his opinion is that Rutgers goes to the Big 10 and will struggle, whereas he thinks A&M is going to be a consistent top 25 team. Everyone else is somewhere in the middle.

That's why only one grade- what's good (or bad, or middling) for the goose is good (or bad, or middling) for the gander sort of thing.

In reality with all the realignment it is/was a basic reshuffle from the beginning in 1998 to the end of the BCS era 2013.

Every school that is/was a Full Member when it started in 1998 is still in a AQ/Contract League-(Temple was not a Full Member of the BIG EAST).

Louisville, Utah & TCU got a permanent seat @ the BIG BOY Table...it went from 63 schools plus ND in 1998 to 65 schools plus ND in 2014...

I think the best proof that these "grades" are bull is Rutgers. If, as Staples claims, these grades reflect some sort of "balance" between benefit to the school and benefit to the conference, then how is Rutgers a D? Clearly, Rutgers hit the jackpot with their B1G invite. For them, definitely an A+ ...but yet they got a D. Even if it was deemed an F for the B1G, then the worst their grade could be would be a C. But the fact of the matter is, we have no proof that the B1G will make absolutely no inroads into the NYC media market. Assuming that the jury's still out on how successful the B1G will be there, the worst grade the conference should get here is a C, meaning that the Rutgers grade ends up as a pretty solid B.

I'm a Louisville homer, so I acknowledge in advance that my reaction to our grade is anything but objective. But I know for a fact that as far as UofL goes, it's an A+. Granted, we're a slight academic downgrade for the ACC, but we're entering at this point as Sugar Bowl champs, National men's basketball champs, national women's basketball finalists, and with an ongoing CWS appearance as the cherry on the sundae. At worst, we're a B+ for the ACC, placing us at either an A or A- overall. You'd be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise.

(06-11-2013 04:51 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  People are underestimating the B1G's conference realignment moves, adding two major presences in the eastern corridor is a HUGE addition. The DC and NJ/part NYC markets are huge additions that will strongly increase the number of BTN subscribers and continually threaten the ACC. Not to mention both schools have very strong academics and high research activity. Conference realignment isn't primarily about wins and losses (clearly since Cincinnati and UConn are still in purgatory). The results on the field/hardwood are cyclical, but markets and academics are not and B1G added two very valuable programs in that regard.

What is this...someone...gets it?

What I dont understand about this article is how some writers get such plumb positions? This writers is an idiot that writes on the topic with zero understanding of the big picture that each conference faces individually. He also doesn't base any of his "rulings" upon any static standards. It is entirely an opinion piece that doesnt even seem to be based upon any rationale at all.

This comes off no better than most sports bloggers out there that have wrote similar pieces and quite frankly SI would have been better off just paying a blogger for an opinion piece they already wrote on the subject.

An F for Rutgers yet B's for Syracuse and Pitt? Really? I am not taking a shot at Pitt and Syracuse with that comment, their placement in the ACC probably deserves more than a B. The ACC is a basketball conference first and both of those programs are thoroughbreds in the Basketball world. They both fit the ACC culture. I would say atleast a B+ for them but Rutgers is a home run for the Big Ten.

Basing a judgement on Rutgers on the past is just stupid...really stupid. A Big East Rutgers is not going to be the same as a Big Ten Rutgers. That conference change will definitely pay big dividends for them. The conference does not need another big time sports program. They just need their current programs to get their **** together. Adding Maryland and Rutgers DOES help in that regard. Maryland's ranking is too low too but I can atleast understand that one being that they came from the ACC adn all their history there where as the Big East was pretty much demolished for Rutgers.

Maryland has some proving to do. When they start restarting sports programs they stopped, that is when folks will have to eat their words because that will be a True achievement.

Rutgers got a Golden Parachute which they didn't deserve. But I'm glad for them. I remember them being called "Rutgirls" for years by the obnoxious Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU fans. Ironically, Rutgers is in a better position than any of them. That's karma of some kind.

(06-11-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:51 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  People are underestimating the B1G's conference realignment moves, adding two major presences in the eastern corridor is a HUGE addition. The DC and NJ/part NYC markets are huge additions that will strongly increase the number of BTN subscribers and continually threaten the ACC. Not to mention both schools have very strong academics and high research activity. Conference realignment isn't primarily about wins and losses (clearly since Cincinnati and UConn are still in purgatory). The results on the field/hardwood are cyclical, but markets and academics are not and B1G added two very valuable programs in that regard.

What is this...someone...gets it?

So why a D then? If this is a case of a massive achievement by Rutgers as well as a good pick up for the B1G, why in the world would he give them a D?

(06-11-2013 09:14 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 08:02 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 04:51 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  People are underestimating the B1G's conference realignment moves, adding two major presences in the eastern corridor is a HUGE addition. The DC and NJ/part NYC markets are huge additions that will strongly increase the number of BTN subscribers and continually threaten the ACC. Not to mention both schools have very strong academics and high research activity. Conference realignment isn't primarily about wins and losses (clearly since Cincinnati and UConn are still in purgatory). The results on the field/hardwood are cyclical, but markets and academics are not and B1G added two very valuable programs in that regard.

What is this...someone...gets it?

So why a D then? If this is a case of a massive achievement by Rutgers as well as a good pick up for the B1G, why in the world would he give them a D?

I would say he is heavily influenced by all the news surrounding Rutgers with both the basketball program and their new hire issue. He probably weighs that whole situation more heavily than the reality of the situation. The situation is ugly but Rutgers is still Rutgers and they are still going to be a member of the Big Ten and they are still going to have all the perks of that relationship. People will forget about the situation when our wonderful Media finds more sensational stories to shove down people's throats.

He is probably also weighing in on Rutgers Basketball program and it's football history. In that regard I understand but I personally think it is pretty evident that Rutgers has been very active in trying to improve it's product in both sports and we definitely saw achievement in that regard on the football field.

The reality though is that the Big Ten does not need Rutgers to come in and lift the overall Big Ten product. They want Rutgers market, they want their partnership in academics. Rutgers IS what the Big Ten needs. There may have been some better choices BUT Rutgers has been on the Big Ten Presidential Preapproved List for a few years now. Having Rutgers (State) University in the Big Ten is a great addition.

This writer shows just how amateur he is with his D rating.

(06-11-2013 03:47 PM)YA! Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 03:06 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 01:59 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I'm still trying to wrap my head around how TCU is a B+.

This--^

I suppose it gives them games in Fort Worth...but Dallas doesn't really care for TCU. TCU has good FB but Hoops is horrific.

I know it is hard for people to understand--but the Dallas-Fort Worth is one large city with the media half based in Fort Worth and the other half based in Dallas. TCU gets as much sports coverage as any other Big 12 team and typically more. Our TV ratings reflect that the DFW MSA loves the Frogs, regardless if you live in Dallas, Fort Worth or even the outlying suburbs.

So to say that Dallas doesn't love TCU is not only false, but funny coming from a fan in San Antonio who is a orange fan that gets exactly zero coverage in Texas.

Dallas News lists the following colleges in order in the "Team by Team Stories" Section: UT, Tech, TAMU, Baylor, SMU, TCU, North Texas

I don't even see one current TCU story on the page (other than it involving UT too).

I rest my case.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sports/college-sports/

(06-11-2013 08:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Rutgers got a Golden Parachute which they didn't deserve. But I'm glad for them. I remember them being called "Rutgirls" for years by the obnoxious Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU fans. Ironically, Rutgers is in a better position than any of them. That's karma of some kind.

Your opinion and I don't care...I'm ecstatic to be in the ACC. B1G fans and ACC Haters think $$$ is the "end all, be all"...I'd rather attend games up and down the Atlantic Coast and be aligned with like minded institutions/fanbases.

If $$$ was everything in sports why has Syracuse been more successful than most B1G teams in FB/BB the last few seasons with the supposed B1G Network largesse coming in while Cuse has survived on a tiny Big East stipend?

Rutgers won the lottery and no one doubts that...the real story is what will the B1G win with asking Rutgers to join. We'll see...no where to go but up.

Has a major school out there done less with more than Rutgers? He1nousOne thinks sprinkling some B1G "Fairy Dust" on Ruttie will change things...really? Color me a skeptic.

(06-11-2013 10:27 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 08:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Rutgers got a Golden Parachute which they didn't deserve. But I'm glad for them. I remember them being called "Rutgirls" for years by the obnoxious Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU fans. Ironically, Rutgers is in a better position than any of them. That's karma of some kind.

Your opinion and I don't care...I'm ecstatic to be in the ACC. B1G fans and ACC Haters think $$$ is the "end all, be all"...I'd rather attend games up and down the Atlantic Coast and be aligned with like minded institutions/fanbases.

If $$$ was everything in sports why has Syracuse been more successful than most B1G teams in FB/BB the last few seasons with the supposed B1G Network largesse coming in while Cuse has survived on a tiny Big East stipend?

Rutgers won the lottery and no one doubts that...the real story is what will the B1G win with asking Rutgers to join. We'll see...no where to go but up.

Has a major school out there done less with more than Rutgers? He1nousOne thinks sprinkling some B1G "Fairy Dust" on Ruttie will change things...really? Color me a skeptic.

And on that note I color us all happy to have moved up.

(06-11-2013 10:27 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 08:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Rutgers got a Golden Parachute which they didn't deserve. But I'm glad for them. I remember them being called "Rutgirls" for years by the obnoxious Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU fans. Ironically, Rutgers is in a better position than any of them. That's karma of some kind.

Your opinion and I don't care...I'm ecstatic to be in the ACC. B1G fans and ACC Haters think $$$ is the "end all, be all"...I'd rather attend games up and down the Atlantic Coast and be aligned with like minded institutions/fanbases.

If $$$ was everything in sports why has Syracuse been more successful than most B1G teams in FB/BB the last few seasons with the supposed B1G Network largesse coming in while Cuse has survived on a tiny Big East stipend?

Rutgers won the lottery and no one doubts that...the real story is what will the B1G win with asking Rutgers to join. We'll see...no where to go but up.

Has a major school out there done less with more than Rutgers? He1nousOne thinks sprinkling some B1G "Fairy Dust" on Ruttie will change things...really? Color me a skeptic.

My post wasn't a slam on Syracuse or most Syracuse fans. I will slam the people who called Rutgers "Rutgirls".

Syracuse has done well and I think they'll be fine in the ACC. Ditto Pitt and Louisville.

(06-12-2013 06:22 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 10:27 PM)TexanMark Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 08:58 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  Rutgers got a Golden Parachute which they didn't deserve. But I'm glad for them. I remember them being called "Rutgirls" for years by the obnoxious Syracuse, Pitt, and WVU fans. Ironically, Rutgers is in a better position than any of them. That's karma of some kind.

Your opinion and I don't care...I'm ecstatic to be in the ACC. B1G fans and ACC Haters think $$$ is the "end all, be all"...I'd rather attend games up and down the Atlantic Coast and be aligned with like minded institutions/fanbases.

If $$$ was everything in sports why has Syracuse been more successful than most B1G teams in FB/BB the last few seasons with the supposed B1G Network largesse coming in while Cuse has survived on a tiny Big East stipend?

Rutgers won the lottery and no one doubts that...the real story is what will the B1G win with asking Rutgers to join. We'll see...no where to go but up.

Has a major school out there done less with more than Rutgers? He1nousOne thinks sprinkling some B1G "Fairy Dust" on Ruttie will change things...really? Color me a skeptic.

My post wasn't a slam on Syracuse or most Syracuse fans. I will slam the people who called Rutgers "Rutgirls".

Syracuse has done well and I think they'll be fine in the ACC. Ditto Pitt and Louisville.

come on Rutgirls was invented by the Syracuse fans...we kinda like it.

They call us Sorryexcuse, Sarah and other things worse...it is part of the Sports Forum's culture.

BTW, I kinda like Yukon for you guys...nothing really bad but more a play on words.

(06-11-2013 04:49 PM)JunkYardCard Wrote:  It still baffles me that a conference with Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Nebraska and Kansas basketball could ever be anything but excellent. Seriously, major programs like Oklahoma State, Missouri and Colorado were "second tier" in the Big 12.

Instead, it basically turned into a circular firing squad. It's amazing the conference is still as good as it is, which is to say pretty damn good.

Sometimes I wonder about this as well, even knowing some of the dysfunction that was occurring within the conference. I think that the Big 12 had the bad luck of being geographically contiguous to more powerful conferences that were looking to expand, as well as having been a relatively early "shotgun marriage" that could have benefitted from hindsight in terms of developing better cohesion within the conference. (Preserving the annual OU/Nebraska football game, for example, could have helped to strengthen NU's ties to the conference despite whatever resentment they may had towards UT.)