Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="CTFAN4LIFE, post: 4627677, member: 3328"] I don't see it that way and I don't think college presidents do either. College presidents are driving through the conference commissioners who are driven by tv executives and media consultants to grow revenues for their athletic departments. College presidents are leaders that have to balance issues across their entire enterprise, including academics and research endeavors. Do not underestimate that the presidents are somewhat collegial within their peer groups - they collaborate on education and research issues while competing against each other on the playing fields. College presidents play nice because these academics don't want to burn a bridge to their potential next employer as the presidents move within the world of academia. Conferences (i.e. a collective of college presidents) typically have gone out of their way to not pillage other conferences, except for the ACC doing so with regards to the BE football schools. And the BE's original composition of the C7 and larger football playing schools were ripe for the picking because it had two factions within it. No other major conference had such disfunction as the BE did and that was the reason for its demise. If this was a game of conquering territory as you say, why hasn't the B1G done more pillaging? They hold the most power/resources yet have only added 2 schools (Maryland/Rutgers) in 2014 and one in 2011 (Nebraska). Now, their next two adds are LA schools - driven by Fox's desires to get the LA market. Fox is market-driven, as opposed to ESPN which is brand-driven. I just don't see the game theory. I see it as money and stability driven not a game of war. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach

Forum statistics

Threads: 164,443

Messages: 4,396,486

Members: 10,209

Latest member: gemini*trvl