(07-25-2018 06:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Oh please God let us go back to real college football conferences before espin ruined it around 1990:
Big 10
Big 8
SEC
SWC
PAC 8
ACC
WAC
Major Indy’s: Notre Dame, Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Army, Navy, ECU.

The PAC-8 went to the PAC-10 in 1978. So, if you're talking about the PAC-8, then you mean the 1960s.

(07-25-2018 05:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  You mean College football is all about matchups, rivalries, pageantry and state bragging rights and not about markets and manufactured ESPN made conferences like the Big East and ACC? Hmmmm...that’s so 1890 to 1990 thinking!

ESPN had nothing to do with ACC expansion in 1990 when FSU was invited and Miami was seriously considered. ESPN also had nothing to do with the idea BC, Syracuse, and Pitt could be football-only members at the time. The leaders of the conference knew they eventually needed to capitalize on the entire east coast to stay relevant, which they did. The conference title game, spearheaded by the Big Ten (although they failed in securing ND to pair with PSU) and SEC, lead to the expansion craze.

(07-26-2018 06:14 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 05:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  You mean College football is all about matchups, rivalries, pageantry and state bragging rights and not about markets and manufactured ESPN made conferences like the Big East and ACC? Hmmmm...that’s so 1890 to 1990 thinking!

ESPN had nothing to do with ACC expansion in 1990 when FSU was invited and Miami was seriously considered. ESPN also had nothing to do with the idea BC, Syracuse, and Pitt could be football-only members at the time. The leaders of the conference knew they eventually needed to capitalize on the entire east coast to stay relevant, which they did. The conference title game, spearheaded by the Big Ten (although they failed in securing ND to pair with PSU) and SEC, lead to the expansion craze.

The conference championship game and the loophole in some old NCAA bylaws which allowed for having two divisions thereby permitting a conference championship game was the brain child of Roy Kramer and had nothing to do with the Big 10.

The Big 10 did kind of kick off the realignment craze by adding then independent Penn State.

Then the ACC added Florida State (independent) followed shortly thereafter by the SEC adding Arkansas (SWC) and South Carolina (which was also independent).

The ACC will offer a trade to the B1G: Maryland and Penn State for Boston College and Syracuse.

Rutgers and Maryland were not just added for the BTN. Maryland and New Jersey are two of the top 3 richest states in the US as far as per capita income. That’s a lot of out of state students.

Sports make a lot of money for a university but they are just the marketing department to attract students. Students become boosters and provide donations. And not all students are created equal. With the rising cost of education, the competition for students is going to be just as important as cable dollars.

(07-26-2018 09:00 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  Rutgers and Maryland were not just added for the BTN. Maryland and New Jersey are two of the top 3 richest states in the US as far as per capita income. That’s a lot of out of state students.

Sports make a lot of money for a university but they are just the marketing department to attract students. Students become boosters and provide donations. And not all students are created equal. With the rising cost of education, the competition for students is going to be just as important as cable dollars.

Recruiting students and connecting to rich alumni were huge factors, not just the BTN.
FtT's blog on where Big 10 alumni go to work is on point.

(07-26-2018 09:14 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 09:00 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  Rutgers and Maryland were not just added for the BTN. Maryland and New Jersey are two of the top 3 richest states in the US as far as per capita income. That’s a lot of out of state students.

Sports make a lot of money for a university but they are just the marketing department to attract students. Students become boosters and provide donations. And not all students are created equal. With the rising cost of education, the competition for students is going to be just as important as cable dollars.

Recruiting students and connecting to rich alumni were huge factors, not just the BTN.
FtT's blog on where Big 10 alumni go to work is on point.

Yes, this is critical.

The data shows that outside of the people that stay in the state where a school is located (e.g. a Michigan grad that stays in the Detroit area), you'll find more Big Ten grads in NYC and DC than you'll find in any Midwestern metro area other than Chicago. In fact, you'll also find more Big Ten grads in LA and San Francisco than any other Midwestern metro other than Chicago, too. In essence, Big Ten grads largely move to the largest metro area in their school's state, Chicago, or out of the Midwest entirely (most likely to NYC, DC, LA or SF).

The B10's interest in MD and Rutgers is also based on keeping Penn State in the conference.

(07-26-2018 06:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 06:14 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 05:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  You mean College football is all about matchups, rivalries, pageantry and state bragging rights and not about markets and manufactured ESPN made conferences like the Big East and ACC? Hmmmm...that’s so 1890 to 1990 thinking!

ESPN had nothing to do with ACC expansion in 1990 when FSU was invited and Miami was seriously considered. ESPN also had nothing to do with the idea BC, Syracuse, and Pitt could be football-only members at the time. The leaders of the conference knew they eventually needed to capitalize on the entire east coast to stay relevant, which they did. The conference title game, spearheaded by the Big Ten (although they failed in securing ND to pair with PSU) and SEC, lead to the expansion craze.

The conference championship game and the loophole in some old NCAA bylaws which allowed for having two divisions thereby permitting a conference championship game was the brain child of Roy Kramer and had nothing to do with the Big 10.

The Big 10 did kind of kick off the realignment craze by adding then independent Penn State.

Then the ACC added Florida State (independent) followed shortly thereafter by the SEC adding Arkansas (SWC) and South Carolina (which was also independent).

Interestingly, SEC expansion talk first appeared in like March 1989 with talk of SC, Arkansas, and Texas. Articles began to cite possible expansion to 14 or 16 teams even. Of course everyone knows the six targets: SC, FSU, Miami, Texas, TAMU, and Arkansas.

Then the Big Ten came along with Penn State, and immediately talks of 12 began. Notre Dame wasn’t interested, and a school like Nebraska would never have been fathomed at the time. Missouri, Kansas, Rutgers, Pitt, and Syracuse were the names most often thrown out.

(07-26-2018 09:00 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  Rutgers and Maryland were not just added for the BTN. Maryland and New Jersey are two of the top 3 richest states in the US as far as per capita income. That’s a lot of out of state students.

Sports make a lot of money for a university but they are just the marketing department to attract students. Students become boosters and provide donations. And not all students are created equal. With the rising cost of education, the competition for students is going to be just as important as cable dollars.

As state funding as diminished, many of the Big 10 schools have increased their acceptance of out-of-state students. At Michigan, for example, 49 percent of the 2016 freshman class was comprised of out-of-state students. Penn State is at 43 percent. Both Indiana and Wisconsin are at 43 percent. It could be that many of these Big 10 alums are just returning home, which happens to be outside the traditional boundaries of the Big 10.

Regarding MD and NJ, neither state has a prestigious back-up state school. So that forces may HS grads of these 2 states to look out-of-state.

(07-25-2018 04:24 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 02:51 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 02:03 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 01:51 PM)YNot Wrote:  I'm sure the B1G has enjoyed non-TV benefits by having Penn St., Ohio St. and Michigan play in New Jersey and Maryland. What are they and what value do they provide to the conference and its legacy members?

Recruiting gains. But the legacy members aren’t playing every year any more. How did BYU like getting split off from AF, Wyoming and Colorado St? They hated it so much that 2 years later they created the MWC.

Rutgers and Maryland look about as solid now as rust peeking through the bondo!

Hahahahaha

But In all seriousness they are good. Unless the Big 10 originals pull a WAC 16 and form their own conference minus Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska and Purdue or Northwestern. As a native Iowan with Hawkeye blood in me, that’s the 9 team conference I want:
The New Big 10-1= Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan St, Ohio St, Penn St
Nebraska can rejoin the Big 12. The other 4 can join the new northern wing of the AAC with UConn, Temple, Cincinnati and Navy.

Love the butthurt AAC members who just hate the fact Rutgers is in the B1G. Why would the B1G members pull a WAC when they voted for these schools to get in? One silly dispute with Comcast isn't going to get the most stable conference into full on meltdown mode. NOw if this happened to the AAC you'd see teams applying to the MAC and CUSA by now. hahahaha

(07-25-2018 06:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Oh please God let us go back to real college football conferences before espin ruined it around 1990:
Big 10
Big 8
SEC
SWC
PAC 8
ACC
WAC
Major Indy’s: Notre Dame, Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Army, Navy, ECU.

Lets also have no playoff, split national titles and northern teams not traveling south because of segregation! Yay for the past!

BTW I love how you snuck ECU into the "Major Indy" category over Syracuse, WVU and Pitt. hahahahaha

(07-26-2018 02:14 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 09:00 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  Rutgers and Maryland were not just added for the BTN. Maryland and New Jersey are two of the top 3 richest states in the US as far as per capita income. That’s a lot of out of state students.

Sports make a lot of money for a university but they are just the marketing department to attract students. Students become boosters and provide donations. And not all students are created equal. With the rising cost of education, the competition for students is going to be just as important as cable dollars.

As state funding as diminished, many of the Big 10 schools have increased their acceptance of out-of-state students. At Michigan, for example, 49 percent of the 2016 freshman class was comprised of out-of-state students. Penn State is at 43 percent. Both Indiana and Wisconsin are at 43 percent. It could be that many of these Big 10 alums are just returning home, which happens to be outside the traditional boundaries of the Big 10.

Regarding MD and NJ, neither state has a prestigious back-up state school. So that forces may HS grads of these 2 states to look out-of-state.

Also there is no financial incentive to stay in state in NJ since you pay almost the same as out of state.

(07-26-2018 12:08 PM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 06:34 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 06:14 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 05:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  You mean College football is all about matchups, rivalries, pageantry and state bragging rights and not about markets and manufactured ESPN made conferences like the Big East and ACC? Hmmmm...that’s so 1890 to 1990 thinking!

ESPN had nothing to do with ACC expansion in 1990 when FSU was invited and Miami was seriously considered. ESPN also had nothing to do with the idea BC, Syracuse, and Pitt could be football-only members at the time. The leaders of the conference knew they eventually needed to capitalize on the entire east coast to stay relevant, which they did. The conference title game, spearheaded by the Big Ten (although they failed in securing ND to pair with PSU) and SEC, lead to the expansion craze.

The conference championship game and the loophole in some old NCAA bylaws which allowed for having two divisions thereby permitting a conference championship game was the brain child of Roy Kramer and had nothing to do with the Big 10.

The Big 10 did kind of kick off the realignment craze by adding then independent Penn State.

Then the ACC added Florida State (independent) followed shortly thereafter by the SEC adding Arkansas (SWC) and South Carolina (which was also independent).

Interestingly, SEC expansion talk first appeared in like March 1989 with talk of SC, Arkansas, and Texas. Articles began to cite possible expansion to 14 or 16 teams even. Of course everyone knows the six targets: SC, FSU, Miami, Texas, TAMU, and Arkansas.

Then the Big Ten came along with Penn State, and immediately talks of 12 began. Notre Dame wasn’t interested, and a school like Nebraska would never have been fathomed at the time. Missouri, Kansas, Rutgers, Pitt, and Syracuse were the names most often thrown out.

Articles may have mentioned Miami, but they weren't a serious target. The six discussed at the office were Arkansas, Texas, Texas A&M, and a party that didn't want to mentioned publicly unless Texas committed (Oklahoma) and then Florida State was on the list but the first school pursued to pair with Florida State was Clemson. South Carolina was the substitute for Clemson when the Tigers opted not pursue the SEC at that time. In fact South Carolina got in touch with the SEC largely due to back channel chat between a Gamecock booster and a Clemson booster who were friends. As the story goes the Clemson booster told the other of our interest in expansion and South Carolina contacted us and the rest is history. Miami was discussed seriously in an even larger expansion plan which at that time was discussed as a defensive strategy should the Big 10 move on the more Northern portions of the ACC (think UNC & Virginia). The idea was for the SEC to protect the heart of its region and the expansion plan would have been to 20 with different schools than those initially pursued for value.

Jackie Sherrill discussed this openly after the fact. He was then at Mississippi State. As to the other I just know.

(07-26-2018 02:14 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 09:00 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  Rutgers and Maryland were not just added for the BTN. Maryland and New Jersey are two of the top 3 richest states in the US as far as per capita income. That’s a lot of out of state students.

Sports make a lot of money for a university but they are just the marketing department to attract students. Students become boosters and provide donations. And not all students are created equal. With the rising cost of education, the competition for students is going to be just as important as cable dollars.

As state funding as diminished, many of the Big 10 schools have increased their acceptance of out-of-state students. At Michigan, for example, 49 percent of the 2016 freshman class was comprised of out-of-state students. Penn State is at 43 percent. Both Indiana and Wisconsin are at 43 percent. It could be that many of these Big 10 alums are just returning home, which happens to be outside the traditional boundaries of the Big 10.

Regarding MD and NJ, neither state has a prestigious back-up state school. So that forces may HS grads of these 2 states to look out-of-state.

I think that will be one of the key factors in the next alignment. Other schools will want access to the rich northeast students that can pay out of state costs. Anecdotally, Alabama has already made an effort to attract students as there are a lot of Pennsylvania kids who now consider that school an option which would not have occurred without the national championships. But since it isn’t easy for other schools to win a ton of national championships in a short amount of time, they will just partner with schools in rich areas.

(07-25-2018 11:36 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  Let's simmer down. It's the same carriage dispute p*ssing contest we see with every sports network when a contract comes up for renewal. The network starts complaining in the media and PR that the fans won't see games, the cable carrier says that it's too expensive and they can watch better games on other channels, and, with very few exceptions (generally on the West Coast like the Pac-12 Network or the Dodgers network where fans don't tar and feather those who block access to games like they do in, say, Chicago), they huff and puff until a day or two before the season starts and get a deal done.

Exactly...

You would swear some here had never been involved in a negotiation before. The broadcasters are going to claim they are losing money and nobody cares about sports anymore. The league is going to claim the only league more popular is the NFL.


It's all part of the give and take. In the end the contract will be signed and everyone will be all smiles, until the next negotiation starts and the cycle starts again.
CJ

(07-26-2018 05:46 AM)dunstvangeet Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 06:01 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Oh please God let us go back to real college football conferences before espin ruined it around 1990:
Big 10
Big 8
SEC
SWC
PAC 8
ACC
WAC
Major Indy’s: Notre Dame, Penn St, Florida St, Miami, Army, Navy, ECU.

The PAC-8 went to the PAC-10 in 1978. So, if you're talking about the PAC-8, then you mean the 1960s.

Well 1978 not the 60’s

(07-27-2018 05:22 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 02:14 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(07-26-2018 09:00 AM)Psuhockey Wrote:  Rutgers and Maryland were not just added for the BTN. Maryland and New Jersey are two of the top 3 richest states in the US as far as per capita income. That’s a lot of out of state students.

Sports make a lot of money for a university but they are just the marketing department to attract students. Students become boosters and provide donations. And not all students are created equal. With the rising cost of education, the competition for students is going to be just as important as cable dollars.

As state funding as diminished, many of the Big 10 schools have increased their acceptance of out-of-state students. At Michigan, for example, 49 percent of the 2016 freshman class was comprised of out-of-state students. Penn State is at 43 percent. Both Indiana and Wisconsin are at 43 percent. It could be that many of these Big 10 alums are just returning home, which happens to be outside the traditional boundaries of the Big 10.

Regarding MD and NJ, neither state has a prestigious back-up state school. So that forces may HS grads of these 2 states to look out-of-state.

I think that will be one of the key factors in the next alignment. Other schools will want access to the rich northeast students that can pay out of state costs. Anecdotally, Alabama has already made an effort to attract students as there are a lot of Pennsylvania kids who now consider that school an option which would not have occurred without the national championships. But since it isn’t easy for other schools to win a ton of national championships in a short amount of time, they will just partner with schools in rich areas.

Ha! Do you want to know the real reason why more PA kids are willing to go out of state?

https://www.google.com/search?q=pitt+and...e&ie=UTF-8

If PA in-state tuition was more competitive relative to the other states, most wouldn't leave...

(07-26-2018 06:14 AM)esayem Wrote:  

(07-25-2018 05:54 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  You mean College football is all about matchups, rivalries, pageantry and state bragging rights and not about markets and manufactured ESPN made conferences like the Big East and ACC? Hmmmm...that’s so 1890 to 1990 thinking!

ESPN had nothing to do with ACC expansion in 1990 when FSU was invited and Miami was seriously considered. ESPN also had nothing to do with the idea BC, Syracuse, and Pitt could be football-only members at the time. The leaders of the conference knew they eventually needed to capitalize on the entire east coast to stay relevant, which they did. The conference title game, spearheaded by the Big Ten (although they failed in securing ND to pair with PSU) and SEC, lead to the expansion craze.

It all started with the Georgia/Oklahoma vs the NCAA case over who controls the TV football rights. TV revenue then became one of the final straws, of many, that broke the Southwest Conference up to allow the SEC to expand and the Big 12 to form.

I haven't watched the BTN in at least 5 years and I live in Ohio. I could see the network dropped here and no one caring at all. There may be outrage in Columbus but the rest of the state would prefer the cost savings. College football used to be tradition and honor and state pride and now its just NFL with less good players. Amazing to realize cfb peaked around 2000 and started failing fast after 2008. Maybe if ND was good again people might care but I think its pretty much past prime and heading towards horse racing and boxing status.