ACC by Tues?

[businesslawyer]

As I said over the weekend, the ACC deferred to BC's wishers a year ago, taking Pitt instead of UConn, and for their trouble had BC embarrass them nationally and be lucky to not be sued by ESPN when ESPN got sued. No one south of the Mason Dixon line is paying any attention whatsoever to what Boston says this time around. And Boston knows that they need to keep their mouth shut.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Wilner has the best track record of any reporter on expansion. He called BS on Texahoma's magical mystery tour looking for a new conference home, saying no one would put up with their BS, and then broke the Pac 12 basically reaching the same conclusion and only taking Colorado. He pegged Utah way before anyone else, and had a good pulse into the Big 12 exodus.

This is a tremendous confirmation.

 

[CL82]

I agree, Biz, but money and positioning is more critical in the long term. Football programs seasons ebb and flow. The Big 10 is positioning itself to be a player for the long term. They are, in my opinion, making, a smart move. It just isn't a move that is good for the fans (except fans of MD and RU) in the near term. The product on the field, and the college football experience generally, is being diminished but the conference is positioning itself to be a player for the foreseeable future.

In the long run, better money means better coaches and better facilities, which means better recruits, which results in better teams. Like you, I don't have to like it to recognize why it is happening.

 

[alexd]

And...our nice, new dapper Athletic Director played football at Michigan alongside the AD at BC.

 

[amory]

As I said over the weekend, the ACC deferred to BC's wishers a year ago, taking Pitt instead of UConn, and for their trouble had BC embarrass them nationally and be lucky to not be sued by ESPN when ESPN got sued. No one south of the Mason Dixon line is paying any attention whatsoever to what Boston says this time around. And Boston knows that they need to keep their mouth shut.

their AD that was pissed at UConn left anyway. the new guy is friends with our AD, they played football together in school or something. BC isn't going to cause issues this time around.

 

[upstater]

DF -- it's amazing. For the second time in a few years (the Pac Ten was the other), a conference has said we will expand in a manner that absolutely dilutes our quality of play to achieve greater revenues. But the Big Ten had enough revenues it didn't have to do that.

Will the strategy work? No idea. But the Big Ten is taking a big step back from where the SEC and Big XII are on the field to reach for more money. And it could easily backfire.

Replacing Maryland with UConn, however, effects very little change in the ACC over all.

There's also a question of football competitiveness.

When PSU joined the Big10, it's entire recruiting base changed, and became more national. Prior to that, PSU recruited Pa., Mid-Atlantic, New England and especially the Norfolk, Carolina, S. Carolina region. After joining, PSU expanded the scope of its recruiting. More midwestern kids.

The B10 is looking at this as a good opportunity to dip into previously ACC regions in the Mid-Atlantic--especially Maryland--while roping in New Jersey talent and preventing some of it from moving south to the ACC.

 

[businesslawyer]

I agree, Biz, but money and positioning is more critical in the long term. Football programs seasons ebb and flow. The Big 10 is positioning itself to be a player for the long term. They are, in my opinion, making, a smart move. It just isn't a move that is good for the fans (except fans of MD and RU) in the near term. The product on the field, and the college football experience generally, is being diminished but the conference is positioning itself to be a player for the foreseeable future.

In the long run, better money means better coaches and better facilities, which means better recruits, which results in better teams. Like you, I don't have to like it to recognize why it is happening.

I only think your last point is true to a certain extent. The Big Ten has been spending more money historically than the Big XII on sports. Where is it getting them?

You have to have enough money to compete at the top tier, absolutely, but the Big Ten had that and would have had that for the forseeable future. I don't think exact ranking among superpower conferences is that important.

 

[Srqhusky]

As I said over the weekend, the ACC deferred to BC's wishers a year ago, taking Pitt instead of UConn, and for their trouble had BC embarrass them nationally and be lucky to not be sued by ESPN when ESPN got sued. No one south of the Mason Dixon line is paying any attention whatsoever to what Boston says this time around. And Boston knows that they need to keep their mouth shut.

Agree with this but would add the rivalry with bc could be a big get for the northeast. If this rivalry gets good it could wake up college football in the northeast.

 

[upstater]

One big thing about the ACC basketball side, the coaches are not liking the current state of the conference and its schedule.

The more basketball schools, the better for them, because the ultimate goal for Coach K. is this:

UNC, NCSU, Virginia, WF, Duke, GT playing 2 games a year against one another.

 

[MattMang23]

The ACC will not offer any team unless they are assured they have sufficient votes from the conference members. So if the tweet is correct, Uconn will be admitted to the ACC.

This. The voting is already done if this tweet is correct.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Well, I know that is what they are thinking. But product on the field matters. I would argue that the last decade they have slipped mightily in real power because the nation views their product on the field as being inferior. And increasing their payouts based on this doesn't change the fact that the league is now overall less competitive than it was last week.

How so? Rutgers would be no worse than about the 3rd or 4th best football team in the B1G this year. Not normally the case I admit, but this year it is. Maryland is a basketball upgrade for the B1G. They needed to improve hoops, since both PSU and Nebraska were dilutive of basketball in a big way. Meanwhile, in one move, they extend the reach of the conference and BTN to three of the biggest markets in the country, NY, Philly and DC...hell throw Baltimore in too.

Why does everyone think in such static terms? Not long ago, South Carolina joined the SEC and was a major weakling for years. Now it's not. Things change. Auburn won a NC a few years back and is now the worst team in the SEC. Maryland has a 38,000 student campus, good academics and a great media market. The fact that the team is weak at the moment isn't relevant.

 

[ctchamps]

I agree, Biz, but money and positioning is more critical in the long term. Football programs seasons ebb and flow. The Big 10 is positioning itself to be a player for the long term. They are, in my opinion, making, a smart move. It just isn't a move that is good for the fans (except fans of MD and RU) in the near term. The product on the field, and the college football experience generally, is being diminished but the conference is positioning itself to be a player for the foreseeable future.

In the long run, better money means better coaches and better facilities, which means better recruits, which results in better teams. Like you, I don't have to like it to recognize why it is happening.

Exactly. The interesting thing about all this is that conferences, and in the case of Texas, a single university, are making inroads into the territory of main stream media. The glory days of ESPN have plateaued. After the conferences divide up the territory, I expect them to combine their individual networks and sell this as one mighty new network to the various cable and satellite outlets. Then they divide revenues based on market share of the conferences.

 

[SubbaBub]

Well, I know that is what they are thinking. But product on the field matters. I would argue that the last decade they have slipped mightily in real power because the nation views their product on the field as being inferior. And increasing their payouts based on this doesn't change the fact that the league is now overall less competitive than it was last week.

I would have thought the same but nowadays, who knows? Does this make it easier for full strength Mich/OSU/Neb/PSU teams to go 12-0 or 11-1? Beating up on 6-8 bad teams under a brand conference name umbrella seems to work for the SEC.

All the while growing Big Ten FB in two densely populated areas funded by increased TV fees. Sounds like a sound long term plan. The only negative is that the programs in question are historically horrible.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MattMang23]

Also, why does everyone seem to think just because Warde is BFF with Master Bates that BC won't be an issue for us? This issue isn't being handled at the AD level. It's on the presidential level. Susan said that last year, and unfortunately for us, Leahy still runs BC and he hates us.

 

[businesslawyer]

How so? Rutgers would be no worse than about the 3rd or 4th best football team in the B1G this year. Not normally the case I admit, but this year it is. Maryland is a basketball upgrade for the B1G. They needed to improve hoops, since both PSU and Nebraska were dilutive of basketball in a big way. Meanwhile, in one move, they extend the reach of the conference and BTN to three of the biggest markets in the country, NY, Philly and DC...hell throw Baltimore in too.

Why does everyone think in such static terms? Not long ago, South Carolina joined the SEC and was a major weakling for years. Now it's not. Things change. Auburn won a NC a few years back and is now the worst team in the SEC. Maryland has a 38,000 student campus, good academics and a great media market. The fact that the team is weak at the moment isn't relevant.

There aren't more than 2 or 3 Big Ten teams who could easily handle Kent State at home this year? Really?

Rutgers is a good, solid team this year -- at worst this is there second best team ever -- but they would not be competing for the Big Ten title, even at their peak and with the Big Ten down. And they are not going to be beating any of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and Wisconsin with any frequency at all. They would be in the middle group with Iowa, Mich State, Purdue, fighting for above .500 finishes in a good year, and bottom half of the league in a bad year.

I am not knocking Rutgers -- I would expect us to do roughly the same under a decent coach, maybe a tad worse. But if you really think RU would be competitive in the Big Ten -- well, now I hope they beat Louisville so we can see how they do against Florida State in the Orange.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There aren't more than 2 or 3 Big Ten teams who could easily handle Kent State at home this year? Really?

Rutgers is a good, solid team this year -- at worst this is there second best team ever -- but they would not be competing for the Big Ten title, even at their peak and with the Big Ten down. And they are not going to be beating any of Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska and Wisconsin with any frequency at all. They would be in the middle group with Iowa, Mich State, Purdue, fighting for above .500 finishes in a good year, and bottom half of the league in a bad year.

I am not knocking Rutgers -- I would expect us to do roughly the same under a decent coach, maybe a tad worse. But if you really think RU would be competitive in the Big Ten -- well, now I hope they beat Louisville so we can see how they do against Florida State in the Orange.

The big 10's best non-conference wins were Michigan State over Boise, Wisconsin over Utah State by 2, and Northwestern and Minnesota over Syracuse. Ohio State beat California by 7. Penn State lost to Ohio at home, and they are 5-2 in the Big 10.

Rutgers would probably be #3 or #4 in the Big 10 this year.

 

[MattMang23]

Ville fans crying foul. @jpoole21 tweeted: @JPoole21: There's no way the ACC can look at UL and UConn and take UConn. UL is more competitive, bigger market, makes more money...the list goes on

Some points are debatable. Bigger market? Hahahahhahahahahaha

 

[businesslawyer]

The big 10's best non-conference wins were Michigan State over Boise, Wisconsin over Utah State by 2, and Northwestern and Minnesota over Syracuse. Ohio State beat California by 7. Penn State lost to Ohio at home, and they are 5-2 in the Big 10.

Rutgers would probably be #3 or #4 in the Big 10 this year.

We may get a clue based on their bowl game. If I'm right, does Fishy get to throw the roll at you?

 

[CL82]

I only think your last point is true to a certain extent. The Big Ten has been spending more money historically than the Big XII on sports. Where is it getting them?

Uh they get to use other conferences like a conference member supermarket?

(I know that wasn't your point.) Any one season is transitory. I think there is a tactical vs. strategic thinking difference here. In the near term what does it get them? Not much once you are in the big boy club. In the long term, however, the difference between being # 1 and #4 (forget about about #5) is an important advantage.

 

[pepband99]

Rutgers is a good, solid team this year -- at worst this is there second best team ever -- but they would not be competing for the Big Ten title, even at their peak and with the Big Ten down.

I know it's an anomaly due to OSU and PSU, but you're flat wrong. INDIANA controlled its division destiny as of 2 weeks ago. Think about that for a second.

 

[businesslawyer]

Uh they get to use other conferences like a conference member supermarket?

(I know that wasn't your point.) Any one season is transitory. I think there is a tactical vs. strategic thinking difference here. In the near term what does it get them? Not much once you are in the big boy club. In the long term, however, the difference between being # 1 and #4 (forget about about #5) is an important advantage.

I agree that any one season is transitory. But neither Maryland nor Rutgers has ever, ever played at a level where you would expect them to be coming near competing for Big Ten titles.

 

[businesslawyer]

I know it's an anomaly due to OSU and PSU, but you're flat wrong. INDIANA controlled its division destiny as of 2 weeks ago. Think about that for a second.

I will be rooting for Rutgers to prove me wrong by going to the Orange Bowl and beating FSU. But my money will be the other way. We'll see.

 

[husky91]

I agree, makes zero sense and really it would be a new area where they compete for interest between SEC and B1G. State of KY is SEC, Indiana is B1G. Think CT as a market more sensible and better natural rivalries w/Cuse, BCU.

Ville fans crying foul. @jpoole21 tweeted: @JPoole21: There's no way the ACC can look at UL and UConn and take UConn. UL is more competitive, bigger market, makes more money...the list goes on

Some points are debatable. Bigger market? Hahahahhahahahahaha

 

[UCFBfan]

I agree, makes zero sense and really it would be a new area where they compete for interest between SEC and B1G. State of KY is SEC, Indiana is B1G. Think CT as a market more sensible and better natural rivalries w/Cuse, BCU.

It also unites the entire New England and NY area for the ACC. BC was always the outliers. Syracuse might have helped but adding UConn links BC to the rest of the conference. BC would have a like minded fanbase in New England and a natural rival.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[huskymedic]

... and here starts Pitino:

McMurphyESPN 2:13pm via TweetDeck
Louisville's Rick Pitino tells @ericcrawford "If I'm the ACC, I'd want Louisville the first school I'd even think about

ericcrawford 2:13pm via TweetDeck
Pitino: "I can figure it out from a TV market standpoint. But you gotta understand, (in Louisville) every TV is on (college sports.)"