(09-24-2018 04:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

No they couldn't. The Big 10 is not as popular in the South as some seem to think it is and GT would be a greater disadvantage than Northwestern. This obsession with making money is insane because it ignores the costs.


If you make 100K and you mortgage and other costs of living are 8K a month you are okay.


If you get a raise to 150K, but you have to move to where the cost of living are 12K a month, are you better off?


Are you going to move for a net 2K?

I just see that get thrown around sometimes on here and brought it up. It does make more sense. Maybe grab a Kentucky, Missouri, or Texas too. Something like that would've made much more sense then grabbing Maryland and Rutgers.

(09-24-2018 04:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

Jesus God YES.

It's about as ridiculous as people who claim the next round of realignment will bring Iowa State & Rice into the B1G.

People forget about the THEY NEED TO ADD VALUE into their thinking. Adding a Texas or Oklahoma ADDS VALUE to the conference. It ADDS VALUE to potential rights deals.

I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

I mean they're a fine MAC school, but a B1G school? Child please.....

I think people are saying is that Buffalo gotten their men's basketball into the tournament by winning their conference championships. Their football does not have the history yet, but Buffalo's men's basketball could help boast the Big 10's conference RPI better than Rutgers. I agree that Iowa State would bring nothing to the Big 10. Rice is on again and of again on both football and basketball. We know Houston is a no go.

As for Buffalo? It does bring a new market just like Rice. Right now, Buffalo is much hotter right now.

UB's basketball isn't at an acceptable level for the Big 10 either.

(09-24-2018 08:19 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

So being an AAU school that is the flagship in a state system whose campus is closer to half the conference than NYC is isn't enough to get you into the B1G? Gotcha. Now if they hadn't dropped football and scholarship athletics from 1970 until the early 90's, they would have had a shot.

UB doesn't have the academic prestige or the football history like the rest of the Big 10 members. Maybe if they had had football in the 70s and 80s they'd have had a shot but right now it's near nil.

(09-24-2018 07:57 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

The only reason Rutgers doesn't make sense right now is because they aren't good.

The Big 10 has always told other schools that you have to be good to be in the Big 10 and have a shot of being good. RU doesn't have a shot and was not good.

(09-23-2018 11:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:18 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:56 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  MAC fans have wanted Eastern Michigan booted from the Conference forever now. Not sure exactly why the MAC itself has never really considered it.

Did expel them in the early 80's EMU sued and the MAC backed down.

Interesting. Did not know that. Why'd they sue?

According to [url= https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/5j...e_mac/]the reddit post[/url] I saw about this, this was all part of the fight over the MAC being relegated to Div1-AA (FCS) level where after a year at the 1-AA level, they had 6 out of 10 schools meet 1-A attendance requirements, so they returned to 1-A (FBS). But then WMU looked like it would not meet the requirements, and the rule was "more than half". So there was a 7-2-1 vote to kick out EMU (WMU & EMU voting against, CMU abstaining).

The NCAA had wanted to tamp down on realignment, not generate it, so they reinterpreted the rule so that WMU's status would be determined following the end of the football season, a ten-school MAC would be 1-A in 1984, and the EMU decision was reversed (I don't know about an EMU suit, but that might also have helped spur the NCAA to reinterpret the rule). Then in 1985, WMU qualified as 1-A, so there was no need to kick out EMU again. Later on, the NCAA rewrote the rules to be turnstile OR ticket sale attendance, and EMU worked out a ticket sale deal that met the new target.

The next four years were some of EMU's best years, with four winning seasons and in 1987 a 10-win season where they went to and won a bowl game. In 1987 EMU beat every MAC team that had voted to expel them in 1984.

Fascinating. I didn't know the MAC played one year as FCS. The article isn't easy to read tho and leaves me with questions, mainly the whole how attendance was looked at, whether yearly or in 5-year-increments. I'm also curious why the MAC didn't want to in 1985. Just because you're FBS, you can still be disappointed with their attendance. Maybe because they viewed it as an auto-win? I'm not sure. I actually don't mind them in the MAC because of their non-football contributions.

(09-24-2018 07:57 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

The only reason Rutgers doesn't make sense right now is because they aren't good.

The Big 10 has always told other schools that you have to be good to be in the Big 10 and have a shot of being good. RU doesn't have a shot and was not good.

Since when? Delaney must have ignored that advice. Maryland and Rutgers were not added because they were powerhouses. They were added to appease the eastern schools. Nebraska was supposed to be the powerhouse addition, and look how that has turned out so far.

The legislation that temporarily demoted was highly detrimental to college football. It tore the Southland apart. The MVC had a similar catastrophic fate. A lot of programs were relegated down and never came back. Wichita St ans UTA simply mothballed their teams.

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

The rumors are that Amazon doesn't want conferences, it wants the top teams irregardless of conference. Buffalo would not be one of those teams (at least in the foreseeable future you never know; they could go on a Boise like run so I don't want to discount that possibility no matter how remote), but I think that's a different argument.

(09-24-2018 08:17 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

The rumors are that Amazon doesn't want conferences, it wants the top teams irregardless of conference. Of course Buffalo would not be one of those top teams, but I think that's a different argument.

Amazon is kidding themselves if they think they can buck years of tradition and just pluck bluebloods from their conferences. The only way this works is is they pull the best of the Pac 12, Big 12, and ACC and create a defacto super conference scheduling alliance with the cream of the crop.

Georgia Tech to the B1G was only going to happen if Virginia and North Carolina tagged along with Maryland. The B1G supposedly even was looking at Vanderbilt, who would be contiguous to the footprint if North CarIlona or Missouri had joined.

With the ACC down as many as four schools, you would have to expect Virginia Tech and 3 of Duke, Florida State, Clemson, NC State, and Miami to join the SEC.

The seven remaining ACC schools probably would have pried West Virginia from the Big 12, who takes Big East-bound Memphis. The ACC then rescues USF, UConn, Cincinnati, UCF, Temple, and East Carolina.

The Big East (Tulsa, Tulane, SMU, and Houston) loses all of the remaining incoming football members, and then becomes the Big East we know today (with the possible exception of Notre Dame instead of Butler, or Notre Dame and Saint Louis). The 2013 BCS AQ goes to the Mountain West champion Fresno State.

(09-24-2018 07:34 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 04:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

No they couldn't. The Big 10 is not as popular in the South as some seem to think it is and GT would be a greater disadvantage than Northwestern. This obsession with making money is insane because it ignores the costs.


If you make 100K and you mortgage and other costs of living are 8K a month you are okay.


If you get a raise to 150K, but you have to move to where the cost of living are 12K a month, are you better off?


Are you going to move for a net 2K?

I just see that get thrown around sometimes on here and brought it up. It does make more sense. Maybe grab a Kentucky, Missouri, or Texas too. Something like that would've made much more sense then grabbing Maryland and Rutgers.

(09-24-2018 04:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

Jesus God YES.

It's about as ridiculous as people who claim the next round of realignment will bring Iowa State & Rice into the B1G.

People forget about the THEY NEED TO ADD VALUE into their thinking. Adding a Texas or Oklahoma ADDS VALUE to the conference. It ADDS VALUE to potential rights deals.

I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

I mean they're a fine MAC school, but a B1G school? Child please.....

I think people are saying is that Buffalo gotten their men's basketball into the tournament by winning their conference championships. Their football does not have the history yet, but Buffalo's men's basketball could help boast the Big 10's conference RPI better than Rutgers. I agree that Iowa State would bring nothing to the Big 10. Rice is on again and of again on both football and basketball. We know Houston is a no go.

As for Buffalo? It does bring a new market just like Rice. Right now, Buffalo is much hotter right now.

UB's basketball isn't at an acceptable level for the Big 10 either.

(09-24-2018 08:19 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

So being an AAU school that is the flagship in a state system whose campus is closer to half the conference than NYC is isn't enough to get you into the B1G? Gotcha. Now if they hadn't dropped football and scholarship athletics from 1970 until the early 90's, they would have had a shot.

UB doesn't have the academic prestige or the football history like the rest of the Big 10 members. Maybe if they had had football in the 70s and 80s they'd have had a shot but right now it's near nil.

(09-24-2018 07:57 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

The only reason Rutgers doesn't make sense right now is because they aren't good.

The Big 10 has always told other schools that you have to be good to be in the Big 10 and have a shot of being good. RU doesn't have a shot and was not good.

(09-23-2018 11:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:18 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:56 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  MAC fans have wanted Eastern Michigan booted from the Conference forever now. Not sure exactly why the MAC itself has never really considered it.

Did expel them in the early 80's EMU sued and the MAC backed down.

Interesting. Did not know that. Why'd they sue?

According to [url= https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/5j...e_mac/]the reddit post[/url] I saw about this, this was all part of the fight over the MAC being relegated to Div1-AA (FCS) level where after a year at the 1-AA level, they had 6 out of 10 schools meet 1-A attendance requirements, so they returned to 1-A (FBS). But then WMU looked like it would not meet the requirements, and the rule was "more than half". So there was a 7-2-1 vote to kick out EMU (WMU & EMU voting against, CMU abstaining).

The NCAA had wanted to tamp down on realignment, not generate it, so they reinterpreted the rule so that WMU's status would be determined following the end of the football season, a ten-school MAC would be 1-A in 1984, and the EMU decision was reversed (I don't know about an EMU suit, but that might also have helped spur the NCAA to reinterpret the rule). Then in 1985, WMU qualified as 1-A, so there was no need to kick out EMU again. Later on, the NCAA rewrote the rules to be turnstile OR ticket sale attendance, and EMU worked out a ticket sale deal that met the new target.

The next four years were some of EMU's best years, with four winning seasons and in 1987 a 10-win season where they went to and won a bowl game. In 1987 EMU beat every MAC team that had voted to expel them in 1984.

Fascinating. I didn't know the MAC played one year as FCS. The article isn't easy to read tho and leaves me with questions, mainly the whole how attendance was looked at, whether yearly or in 5-year-increments. I'm also curious why the MAC didn't want to in 1985. Just because you're FBS, you can still be disappointed with their attendance. Maybe because they viewed it as an auto-win? I'm not sure. I actually don't mind them in the MAC because of their non-football contributions.

From what I understand the NCAA essentially told the MAC that they were going to be IAA and the MAC essentially said heck no and refused to accept it (for example I believe they did not try to be part of the playoff). By the next year they had convinced the NCAA that they should be in IA.

(09-24-2018 07:34 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Fascinating. I didn't know the MAC played one year as FCS. The article isn't easy to read tho and leaves me with questions, mainly the whole how attendance was looked at, whether yearly or in 5-year-increments.

I don't know whether it was annually or a sliding 5 year window, but there were two MAC svhhols that were solidly 1A under the rules at the time, three that were able to get themselves over the borderline with some work, WMU flirting with the threshold, and four substantially under the threshold.

If the MAC had stayed 1AA, they would have lost most or all of their 1A members. That's why CMU abstained ... they didn't want to alienate their fellow 1A MAC schools that they might be looking for a new home with.

Quote:I'm also curious why the MAC didn't want to in 1985.

They never really wanted to. But it looked like they were going to lose their most successful football members. When that threat faded, so did the incentive to kick out EMU. As far as EMU's attendance, it is not a direct impediment to other MAC schools, so if the NCAA doesn't punish the conference for it, why should the other schhols care?

(09-23-2018 07:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 06:39 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Rutgers to the Big Ten was mentioned in the early 90s. They have been on the radar for the Big Ten for a while. They fit academically and demographically of the other Big Ten schools perfectly. They also provide the Big 3 of the Big Ten in opportunity to play every other year in the New York City metro. Which is huge for recruiting both student athletes and students. Not to mention the New York area is a large alumni hub for many of the Big Ten schools.

This.

Anyone that does not understand why Rutgers was added to the B1G simply does not realize that the school is an academic and institutional peer to all of the conference schools. The NY/NJ market is a huge hub for B1G alumni, and it is an incredibly strong recruiting area for all of the schools to tap into.

Rutgers was not admitted into the B1G in order to win league championships in football and basketball. It was invited to grow the league, connect with alumni in a strong part of the country and create a pipeline for recruiting in revenue sports. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

I don't disagree with any of this. And I was happy for Rutgers when they (finally) got the call; the billboards along NJ highways after being invited was really exciting. You know, a lot of schools would love to be in the Big Ten...you could tell Rutgers' excitement may have made them more than most.

However...

Consider that from all of the talks Rutgers had/may have had over the two or so decades with the Big Ten/Big Ten schools about its candidacy, what Rutgers had to do for its athletic infrastructure to get that call. A ton of money to consistently operate and maintain a top-level D1 athletic department with strong football infrastructure. How are they doing keeping up with that commitment?

I don't know if this is a long haul thing. I'll be honest...as excited as I was for them, that changed when I, heck, the country saw how maybe long it might take for Rutgers to "get it" as a major player, if ever. Consider how bad it looks on the Big Ten when its newest member hosts the mighty Ohio State, you are staring at this kind of scene in the stands for most of the second half:
.

Heck, or in your first season against Wisconsin, and you see this:


The worst, though, is when you get your "rival," Penn State, and this is how it looks:


"Sold out" or no, it doesn't look good.

It's not about Rutgers losing 2-0 or 92-0 to any major Big Ten team. Where I would consider the Big Ten cutting ties with Rutgers is over its infrastructure and whether Rutgers demonstrates a consistent commitment to improvement. Yes, it's still early...but it shouldn't look like the above. Not this soon in. And if gates are going to dip across CFB, if the new guy isn't good for showing up at their own joint, let alone all of these others'...there are others who will. Eventually, the stiffs who make these decisions may see it that way, too.

(09-24-2018 10:09 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 07:34 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 04:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

No they couldn't. The Big 10 is not as popular in the South as some seem to think it is and GT would be a greater disadvantage than Northwestern. This obsession with making money is insane because it ignores the costs.


If you make 100K and you mortgage and other costs of living are 8K a month you are okay.


If you get a raise to 150K, but you have to move to where the cost of living are 12K a month, are you better off?


Are you going to move for a net 2K?

I just see that get thrown around sometimes on here and brought it up. It does make more sense. Maybe grab a Kentucky, Missouri, or Texas too. Something like that would've made much more sense then grabbing Maryland and Rutgers.

(09-24-2018 04:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

Jesus God YES.

It's about as ridiculous as people who claim the next round of realignment will bring Iowa State & Rice into the B1G.

People forget about the THEY NEED TO ADD VALUE into their thinking. Adding a Texas or Oklahoma ADDS VALUE to the conference. It ADDS VALUE to potential rights deals.

I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

I mean they're a fine MAC school, but a B1G school? Child please.....

I think people are saying is that Buffalo gotten their men's basketball into the tournament by winning their conference championships. Their football does not have the history yet, but Buffalo's men's basketball could help boast the Big 10's conference RPI better than Rutgers. I agree that Iowa State would bring nothing to the Big 10. Rice is on again and of again on both football and basketball. We know Houston is a no go.

As for Buffalo? It does bring a new market just like Rice. Right now, Buffalo is much hotter right now.

UB's basketball isn't at an acceptable level for the Big 10 either.

(09-24-2018 08:19 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

So being an AAU school that is the flagship in a state system whose campus is closer to half the conference than NYC is isn't enough to get you into the B1G? Gotcha. Now if they hadn't dropped football and scholarship athletics from 1970 until the early 90's, they would have had a shot.

UB doesn't have the academic prestige or the football history like the rest of the Big 10 members. Maybe if they had had football in the 70s and 80s they'd have had a shot but right now it's near nil.

(09-24-2018 07:57 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

The only reason Rutgers doesn't make sense right now is because they aren't good.

The Big 10 has always told other schools that you have to be good to be in the Big 10 and have a shot of being good. RU doesn't have a shot and was not good.

(09-23-2018 11:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:18 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:13 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Did expel them in the early 80's EMU sued and the MAC backed down.

Interesting. Did not know that. Why'd they sue?

According to [url= https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/5j...e_mac/]the reddit post[/url] I saw about this, this was all part of the fight over the MAC being relegated to Div1-AA (FCS) level where after a year at the 1-AA level, they had 6 out of 10 schools meet 1-A attendance requirements, so they returned to 1-A (FBS). But then WMU looked like it would not meet the requirements, and the rule was "more than half". So there was a 7-2-1 vote to kick out EMU (WMU & EMU voting against, CMU abstaining).

The NCAA had wanted to tamp down on realignment, not generate it, so they reinterpreted the rule so that WMU's status would be determined following the end of the football season, a ten-school MAC would be 1-A in 1984, and the EMU decision was reversed (I don't know about an EMU suit, but that might also have helped spur the NCAA to reinterpret the rule). Then in 1985, WMU qualified as 1-A, so there was no need to kick out EMU again. Later on, the NCAA rewrote the rules to be turnstile OR ticket sale attendance, and EMU worked out a ticket sale deal that met the new target.

The next four years were some of EMU's best years, with four winning seasons and in 1987 a 10-win season where they went to and won a bowl game. In 1987 EMU beat every MAC team that had voted to expel them in 1984.

Fascinating. I didn't know the MAC played one year as FCS. The article isn't easy to read tho and leaves me with questions, mainly the whole how attendance was looked at, whether yearly or in 5-year-increments. I'm also curious why the MAC didn't want to in 1985. Just because you're FBS, you can still be disappointed with their attendance. Maybe because they viewed it as an auto-win? I'm not sure. I actually don't mind them in the MAC because of their non-football contributions.

From what I understand the NCAA essentially told the MAC that they were going to be IAA and the MAC essentially said heck no and refused to accept it (for example I believe they did not try to be part of the playoff). By the next year they had convinced the NCAA that they should be in IA.

You did had schools split from each other like Southland, MVC, Southern, OVC, Ivy, Patriot and some others. Most of MVC schools met the requirements to be 1A, but others were not. West Texas A&M was also in the same boat as Wichita State and UTA. They did not dropped football at the time, but being in 1AA for all sports in MVC was not easy. They fit better in the same conference with UTEP, New Mexico or New Mexico State.

Here are the schools that met FBS status since the 15,000 attendance requirement.

Colgate
Holy Cross
Illinois State MVC
Indiana State MVC
Richmond CAA
Tennessee State OVC
VillanoVa CAA
Wichita State MVC
William & Mary CAA
McNeese State Southland
West Texas A&M MVC
Southern Illinois MVC
UTA
Chattanooga Southern
Citadel Southern
East Tennessee State Southern
Furman Southern
Lamar Southland
VMI Southern
Western Carolina Southern

Now, examples of schools got booted or could have been booted.

UTRGV Southland
New Orleans Sun Belt
Denver Sun Belt
New Mexico State's football booted from Sun Belt
Idaho football booted from Sun Belt
East Tennessee State could have been booted from Southern Conference
VMI could have been booted from Southern

Southern Conference let by gones be by gones by letting East Tennessee State and VMI back in.
Sun Belt Conference could let Lamar back in.
Southland could let UTRGV back in.

Northern Michigan was labeled 1A or FCS from 1978 to 1980. They were in a conference with Youngstown State and some members of the MAC.

MVC could allow back West Texas A&M and New Mexico State (except football for both). Washburn was a former member.

Now, I do think if a school gets booted from a conference? It happened before at all levels.

Football affiliates shouldn't really count as members that got kicked out for the purposes of this discussion - affiliates that don't have full membership rights can generally be dropped without any more difficulty than informing the affiliate you aren't renewing the agreement. Removing an actual full voting member is another animal entirely because every other school knows they're setting a precedent that they could be shown the door as well down the line.

(09-25-2018 08:21 AM)Bogg Wrote:  Football affiliates shouldn't really count as members that got kicked out for the purposes of this discussion - affiliates that don't have full membership rights can generally be dropped without any more difficulty than informing the affiliate you aren't renewing the agreement. Removing an actual full voting member is another animal entirely because every other school knows they're setting a precedent that they could be shown the door as well down the line.

I did the math once. Football affiliate memberships on average in I-A/FBS have lasted around 3 years.

(09-24-2018 04:32 PM)gosports1 Wrote:  FWIW New Jersey , the lower Hudson Valley and I think Long Island are Cablevision territory (optimum) Verizon is also a factor both carry BTN

And nearly all of Upstate (other than a few small towns) are served by Spectrum.

(09-25-2018 04:10 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 10:09 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 07:34 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 04:48 PM)Statefan Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

No they couldn't. The Big 10 is not as popular in the South as some seem to think it is and GT would be a greater disadvantage than Northwestern. This obsession with making money is insane because it ignores the costs.


If you make 100K and you mortgage and other costs of living are 8K a month you are okay.


If you get a raise to 150K, but you have to move to where the cost of living are 12K a month, are you better off?


Are you going to move for a net 2K?

I just see that get thrown around sometimes on here and brought it up. It does make more sense. Maybe grab a Kentucky, Missouri, or Texas too. Something like that would've made much more sense then grabbing Maryland and Rutgers.

(09-24-2018 04:43 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  Jesus God YES.

It's about as ridiculous as people who claim the next round of realignment will bring Iowa State & Rice into the B1G.

People forget about the THEY NEED TO ADD VALUE into their thinking. Adding a Texas or Oklahoma ADDS VALUE to the conference. It ADDS VALUE to potential rights deals.

I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

I mean they're a fine MAC school, but a B1G school? Child please.....

I think people are saying is that Buffalo gotten their men's basketball into the tournament by winning their conference championships. Their football does not have the history yet, but Buffalo's men's basketball could help boast the Big 10's conference RPI better than Rutgers. I agree that Iowa State would bring nothing to the Big 10. Rice is on again and of again on both football and basketball. We know Houston is a no go.

As for Buffalo? It does bring a new market just like Rice. Right now, Buffalo is much hotter right now.

UB's basketball isn't at an acceptable level for the Big 10 either.

(09-24-2018 08:19 AM)whittx Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 05:03 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Can we please stop the Buffalo to the Big 10 talks?

So being an AAU school that is the flagship in a state system whose campus is closer to half the conference than NYC is isn't enough to get you into the B1G? Gotcha. Now if they hadn't dropped football and scholarship athletics from 1970 until the early 90's, they would have had a shot.

UB doesn't have the academic prestige or the football history like the rest of the Big 10 members. Maybe if they had had football in the 70s and 80s they'd have had a shot but right now it's near nil.

(09-24-2018 07:57 AM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 08:57 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  They could've grabbed GA Tech for the Atlanta market. Makes more sense then RU.

The only reason Rutgers doesn't make sense right now is because they aren't good.

The Big 10 has always told other schools that you have to be good to be in the Big 10 and have a shot of being good. RU doesn't have a shot and was not good.

(09-23-2018 11:44 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 10:18 PM)Bronco14 Wrote:  Interesting. Did not know that. Why'd they sue?

According to [url= https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/5j...e_mac/]the reddit post[/url] I saw about this, this was all part of the fight over the MAC being relegated to Div1-AA (FCS) level where after a year at the 1-AA level, they had 6 out of 10 schools meet 1-A attendance requirements, so they returned to 1-A (FBS). But then WMU looked like it would not meet the requirements, and the rule was "more than half". So there was a 7-2-1 vote to kick out EMU (WMU & EMU voting against, CMU abstaining).

The NCAA had wanted to tamp down on realignment, not generate it, so they reinterpreted the rule so that WMU's status would be determined following the end of the football season, a ten-school MAC would be 1-A in 1984, and the EMU decision was reversed (I don't know about an EMU suit, but that might also have helped spur the NCAA to reinterpret the rule). Then in 1985, WMU qualified as 1-A, so there was no need to kick out EMU again. Later on, the NCAA rewrote the rules to be turnstile OR ticket sale attendance, and EMU worked out a ticket sale deal that met the new target.

The next four years were some of EMU's best years, with four winning seasons and in 1987 a 10-win season where they went to and won a bowl game. In 1987 EMU beat every MAC team that had voted to expel them in 1984.

Fascinating. I didn't know the MAC played one year as FCS. The article isn't easy to read tho and leaves me with questions, mainly the whole how attendance was looked at, whether yearly or in 5-year-increments. I'm also curious why the MAC didn't want to in 1985. Just because you're FBS, you can still be disappointed with their attendance. Maybe because they viewed it as an auto-win? I'm not sure. I actually don't mind them in the MAC because of their non-football contributions.

From what I understand the NCAA essentially told the MAC that they were going to be IAA and the MAC essentially said heck no and refused to accept it (for example I believe they did not try to be part of the playoff). By the next year they had convinced the NCAA that they should be in IA.

You did had schools split from each other like Southland, MVC, Southern, OVC, Ivy, Patriot and some others. Most of MVC schools met the requirements to be 1A, but others were not. West Texas A&M was also in the same boat as Wichita State and UTA. They did not dropped football at the time, but being in 1AA for all sports in MVC was not easy. They fit better in the same conference with UTEP, New Mexico or New Mexico State.

Here are the schools that met FBS status since the 15,000 attendance requirement.

Colgate
Holy Cross
Illinois State MVC
Indiana State MVC
Richmond CAA
Tennessee State OVC
VillanoVa CAA
Wichita State MVC
William & Mary CAA
McNeese State Southland
West Texas A&M MVC
Southern Illinois MVC
UTA
Chattanooga Southern
Citadel Southern
East Tennessee State Southern
Furman Southern
Lamar Southland
VMI Southern
Western Carolina Southern

Now, examples of schools got booted or could have been booted.

UTRGV Southland
New Orleans Sun Belt
Denver Sun Belt
New Mexico State's football booted from Sun Belt
Idaho football booted from Sun Belt
East Tennessee State could have been booted from Southern Conference
VMI could have been booted from Southern

Southern Conference let by gones be by gones by letting East Tennessee State and VMI back in.
Sun Belt Conference could let Lamar back in.
Southland could let UTRGV back in.

Northern Michigan was labeled 1A or FCS from 1978 to 1980. They were in a conference with Youngstown State and some members of the MAC.

MVC could allow back West Texas A&M and New Mexico State (except football for both). Washburn was a former member.

Now, I do think if a school gets booted from a conference? It happened before at all levels.

New Orleans left the Sun Belt because their campus was severely damaged by Katrina and they were flirting with going D3, not because the Sun Belt kicked them out. It wasn't till they had filed the paperwork to leave the Sun Belt that they decided to stay D1 and join the Southland.

(09-25-2018 09:16 AM)whittx Wrote:  New Orleans left the Sun Belt because their campus was severely damaged by Katrina and they were flirting with going D3, not because the Sun Belt kicked them out. It wasn't till they had filed the paperwork to leave the Sun Belt that they decided to stay D1 and join the Southland.

New Orleans was actually kicked out of the Sun Belt in 1980 for having crappy facilities. They rejoined in 1991.

David, why would we add Lamar when the Sun Belt already has 12 schools, 2 of which are in Texas? They would just be another mouth to feed.

(09-25-2018 09:16 AM)whittx Wrote:  New Orleans left the Sun Belt because their campus was severely damaged by Katrina and they were flirting with going D3, not because the Sun Belt kicked them out. It wasn't till they had filed the paperwork to leave the Sun Belt that they decided to stay D1 and join the Southland.

Almost.

NCAA waived the minimum sport requirements for Tulane and UNO for a period of time. UNO made no progress adding sports back. They did file paperwork to go Division III and then reversed course to join the Division II Gulf South, and then left the GSC to return to Division I in the Southland after they were able to leave the LSU System and join the UL system. It wasn't until they were out of the LSU System that they crafted any sort of plan to add enough sports to be Division I, but they were on the clock with the Sun Belt (along with Denver) to add more sports under the Sun Belt umbrella or be expelled.

(09-24-2018 08:21 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 08:17 PM)McKinney Wrote:  

(09-24-2018 08:42 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  I don't see networks or Amazon screaming "YES, we MUST sign up the B1G, they added BUFFALO!"

The rumors are that Amazon doesn't want conferences, it wants the top teams irregardless of conference. Of course Buffalo would not be one of those top teams, but I think that's a different argument.

Amazon is kidding themselves if they think they can buck years of tradition and just pluck bluebloods from their conferences. The only way this works is is they pull the best of the Pac 12, Big 12, and ACC and create a defacto super conference scheduling alliance with the cream of the crop.

Amazon would be looking at HUGE $$$ in order to turn that into anything more than a pipe dream.

They MIGHT be able to pull a couple top tier teams away, but I find it hard to believe that it would be enough to create a super-conference.

One possibility could be if the PAC implodes and they try and put together a "deal" and create a defacto "Independent" Conference where they acquire the "TV" rights for schools like USC, Stanford, BYU, Notre Dame (whose deal with NBC expires in 2025), etc. Big name schools playing big time games across the nation might work....

(09-25-2018 03:44 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 07:22 PM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 06:39 PM)MissouriStateBears Wrote:  Rutgers to the Big Ten was mentioned in the early 90s. They have been on the radar for the Big Ten for a while. They fit academically and demographically of the other Big Ten schools perfectly. They also provide the Big 3 of the Big Ten in opportunity to play every other year in the New York City metro. Which is huge for recruiting both student athletes and students. Not to mention the New York area is a large alumni hub for many of the Big Ten schools.

This.

Anyone that does not understand why Rutgers was added to the B1G simply does not realize that the school is an academic and institutional peer to all of the conference schools. The NY/NJ market is a huge hub for B1G alumni, and it is an incredibly strong recruiting area for all of the schools to tap into.

Rutgers was not admitted into the B1G in order to win league championships in football and basketball. It was invited to grow the league, connect with alumni in a strong part of the country and create a pipeline for recruiting in revenue sports. They are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

I don't disagree with any of this. And I was happy for Rutgers when they (finally) got the call; the billboards along NJ highways after being invited was really exciting. You know, a lot of schools would love to be in the Big Ten...you could tell Rutgers' excitement may have made them more than most.

However...

Consider that from all of the talks Rutgers had/may have had over the two or so decades with the Big Ten/Big Ten schools about its candidacy, what Rutgers had to do for its athletic infrastructure to get that call. A ton of money to consistently operate and maintain a top-level D1 athletic department with strong football infrastructure. How are they doing keeping up with that commitment?

I don't know if this is a long haul thing. I'll be honest...as excited as I was for them, that changed when I, heck, the country saw how maybe long it might take for Rutgers to "get it" as a major player, if ever. Consider how bad it looks on the Big Ten when its newest member hosts the mighty Ohio State, you are staring at this kind of scene in the stands for most of the second half:
.

Heck, or in your first season against Wisconsin, and you see this:


The worst, though, is when you get your "rival," Penn State, and this is how it looks:


"Sold out" or no, it doesn't look good.

It's not about Rutgers losing 2-0 or 92-0 to any major Big Ten team. Where I would consider the Big Ten cutting ties with Rutgers is over its infrastructure and whether Rutgers demonstrates a consistent commitment to improvement. Yes, it's still early...but it shouldn't look like the above. Not this soon in. And if gates are going to dip across CFB, if the new guy isn't good for showing up at their own joint, let alone all of these others'...there are others who will. Eventually, the stiffs who make these decisions may see it that way, too.

All valid points, but I would simply go back to the point that a conference member, even when struggling and/or being non-competitive in revenue sports, has to still provide value to that conference. It can be academics, it can be fan base, it can be market, etc. Rutgers, even if it consistently comes in last-place in football and men's basketball, still provides the B1G with an institutional (land grant), academic (AAU) and market (alumni/recruiting) fit.

Someone always needs to come in last-place in sports. For an elite college athletics conference, the B1G would much rather have that team, or program, continue to add positive value to the other members (which Rutgers and Maryland certainly do). Other programs in consideration at the time (Missouri, Kansas) would not have provided the same value. A UNC/Virginia/Duke/GT quadrant would have as well, but that wasn't happening unless there was a full-scale ACC destruction.

If we look back in time, the first TV deals were with individual colleges and individual NFL teams, likewise individual NBA teams and MLB teams and the result was always that schools/teams would determine that cooperation was in their best interest for a national package.

Highly unlikely any P5 not named Notre Dame is going out and cutting their own individual deal with Amazon unless they believe independence is in their best interest and Amazon is the tool to achieve independence.