Here’s a bombshell

[upstater]

They were not one of the original invites. What are you smoking?

It's amazing that you can't understand the history.

Paterno wanted to create a northeastern conference even before the BE started discussions in 78. They negotiated with Penn State and Rutgers, but Paterno made demands that were pissed people off. Only after that was Seton Hall invited.

4 years later PSU came back, and they brought Rutgers, Maryland and West Virginia with tehm.

There appears to be some confusion about the vote since Paterno has said Pitt and Syracuse voted against him, Crouthamel has also let it out that Syracuse voted against them, but Tranghese countered that and said Syracuse voted for them

 

[upstater]

Here is an excerpt from Dana O’Neil’s book, the Big East, which I really enjoyed. Gavitt wanted Penn State to join, but St. John’s, Georgetown, and Villanova all voted against adding them.

O'Neil quotes Tranghese, but Crouthamel and Paterno said otherwise. It appears to contradict several of the recollections. Remember, UConn was key in trying to get Penn State in at the time, and they supposedly helped to corral the Catholic holdouts.

 

[upstater]

There's actually a lot of stuff that went on between the years 1978 and 1982. Paterno is definitely on record as saying Crouthamel and Flynn opposed PSU prior to 1982. Crouthamel seems to agree with Paterno's version when he mentions Syracuse voting against. It's hard to say if he's referring to an official vote in 1982, or a soft vote taken in 1981.

Before Pitt was invited.

You have to remember that John Toner and Dave Gavitt successfully got a number of schools to go along with adding PSU, and they had long meetings with Paterno about it back in 1980. UConn was a key to all this because it was a non-football school pushing for football members in the Big East.

Paterno seems to think that BC and Syracuse scuttled it in 1980 / 1981. Crouthamel references a vote Syracuse took against, but I don't know if he's referring to 1980 / 1981 or 1982.

 

[McLovin]

Agreed, big markets really shouldn’t be a big factor for realignment. I live in Boston, and can vouch that no one cares for BC, BU or UMass at all. Hell there’s probably more UConn fans here than any Massachusetts based teams. They only care about pro sports here and honestly I would be the same way if I didn’t go to UConn.

I imagine NY is the same way, especially with it being a large hub of people from all the US.

Right - it's all about fan bases. With such a big Irish population in Boston, I wouldn't be surprised if Notre Dame (1,000 miles away) was the most followed college team in the market.

 

[Chin Diesel]

Agreed, big markets really shouldn’t be a big factor for realignment. I live in Boston, and can vouch that no one cares for BC, BU or UMass at all. Hell there’s probably more UConn fans here than any Massachusetts based teams. They only care about pro sports here and honestly I would be the same way if I didn’t go to UConn.

I imagine NY is the same way, especially with it being a large hub of people from all the US.

You finally figured it out in the last sentence. It's not "market" in terms of just local team support, TV's and news: it's market in terms of a large group of people who have interest in the product.

The B1G has a presence in NYC and Wash DC not because of Rutgers or Maryland but because there are a ton of B1G alumni in those areas interested in B1G sports. NYC, Chicago, soon to be LA, Wash DC all have strong B1G presence.

Texas is about to become the biggest anchor for the SEC. They will be the top story in the Houston, DFW, Austin, and San Antonio markets. The Big12 can claim Lubbock and be secondary market in Houston and DFW. Right now SEC best big market or population area is Atlanta.

Pac12 is losing LA market. If everything stands pat, San Francisco, San Jose and Seattle are biggest population areas of interest but I don't know how much those cities are in to being college towns and spending hours of weekend time watching college sports.

 

[AZHuskiePop]

Tranghese didn’t even see the raid coming. What makes you think he would have had enough sense to pull that caper off?

That’s true , but *Providence had a BB mentality and viewed football as found money
We’re talking hypothetically , if a National Football Brand had been in the mix earlier
I suspect the leadership would have been more balanced

*Big East Management

 

[NJHusky]

Markets don't matter much. The B1G doesn't "have" NYC, because of Rutgers, if anything it's in good shape because Michigan and Ohio State are popular there. Nobody anywhere cares about Rutgers. It certainly will have eyeballs in LA, and dominates in Chicago. DC? Maryland doesn't move the needle in football anywhere. Most of DC is transient people from everywhere.

ACC has some popular programs and its regions are growing rapidly. Nobody "has" Boston for the same reason nobody has NYC or DC. No one or even two teams capture most of the eyeballs. The B1G coverage of Chicago is strong because it has loads of alumni from all the B1G schools. But it honestly doesn't matter. What matters is whether somebody that is not a fan wants to watch a team play. Michigan, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Clemson, Alabama, LSA, Texas, USC, Georgia...those all matter.

You’re missing the media $$ with RU. if the B10 network is on your provider they are getting paid. When RU joined, NJ (and I assume Metro NYC) got the B10 network and you are stuck paying for it. Doesn’t matter cable or streaming.

 

[upstater]

Crouthamel is actually on record that they did vote in 1982 FOR adding PSU.

But he also said he voted against the earlier attempt to add PSU because PSU wanted no revenue sharing for football. There were multiple attempts to add PSU, not just one.

Going back to the start of the conference, it was a discussion between 3 schools that kicked it off, Syracuse, Georgetown and PC.

A year or so after formation, it was UConn and Gavitt that negotiated with PSU and Patrerno.

That attempt was thwarted by Syracuse and BC because of PSU's revenue sharing demand.

A year or two after that, PSU came up for a vote again, and at that point, Syracuse voted for them.

You can see a reference to the middle vote in this article: 'They wanted to hurt us': Penn State ends rivalry with SU in 1988

"There's more to it than what has already come out," said MacPherson. "I don't believe it has anything to do with scheduling more home games. Ask (Penn State head coach) Joe Paterno the reason Penn State isn't going to play Syracuse. See if you get the real answer."

(The quote may have referred to the rumor that Syracuse had placed the deciding vote to keep Penn State out of the original Big East conference in 1982.)

"I think they wanted to hurt us, and they did," he added

There's actually a lot more to it. PSU claims it had Maryland, Rutgers, West Virginia and Pitt with it, but before Paterno started talking to UConn and Gavitt, he was trying to pull BC and Syracuse into an all sports conference.

Crouthamel claims that the discussions with PSU only occurred as a defensive maneuver to ringfence Paterno's idea of a conference. When the BE pulled Pitt into the conference, a school that Paterno thought he had on his side, that's when the bad blood started, because that effectively ended Paterno's attempts and forced PSU to apply for conference membership.

 

[Viet Vet]

Everyone assuming this is the big one that ends it all. I think that is premature. The ACC will be around for awhile. It may need to expand. The remnants of the Big 12 and PAC need to figure out how to best combine and create the best media package. Those left out of that, will likely connect with the MWC (I can see Oregon State and Washington State being left out, maybe BYU too....plus the schools just added are in a tough spot).

Will they be financially disadvantaged? Yes. But the reality is that cable TV itself is doomed, and so these giant media deals won't last much longer. The USC and UCLA move tracks with national recognition being more important than local markets in a post cable, streaming world. The ACC has great, growing local markets, much better than the B1G or most of the SEC. When "the big one" comes, the stragglers in the SEC and B1G will be cast aside too, and the stronger programs in the other conferences will get an in. We haven't seen that yet. When Northwestern, Rutgers, Vandy and Mississippi State get the boot, then I'll believe the split is coming.

Northwestern (along with Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin and Chicago) was a charter member of the conference that would become the Big Ten. They will not be booted.

 

[McLovin]

Northwestern (along with Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin and Chicago) was a charter member of the conference that would become the Big Ten. They will not be booted.

Why not? They probably don't bring much to the table in terms of media $. I doubt they are even a top 3 most popular college team in Chicago.

Loyalty means nothing. It's all about money.

 

[ScottVib]

I think believing either Crouthamel or Paterno's versions singularly is a mistake. Both were serving their own interests and desired to be on the right side of history when they retold the story (Crouthamel from an I told everyone so, and Paterno from a see if they would've just followed my plan from the start perspective). Pitt was never in a position to vote for or against Penn State, they were added after Penn State's rejection to checkmate Paterno's creation of a conference that would've forced Syracuse and Boston College to leave the fledgling Big East as they would've lost many/most of their traditional eastern football independents.

 

[Chuck]

Why not? They probably don't bring much to the table in terms of media $. I doubt they are even a top 3 most popular college team in Chicago.

Loyalty means nothing. It's all about money.

A lot of Boneyarders are convinced that Northwestern (and maybe Rutgers) and Vanderbilt are going to be booted from the Big Ten and SEC respectively. They also reference BC, Wake Forest, Oregon State, Oklahoma State, etc. being booted or at least "left behind." I don't necessarily disagree about these schools potentially being left behind, but I haven't seen anything to make me believe that they will be kicked out of their conferences. I'm not even sure they can be kicked out for simply not being profitable enough. To my knowledge, the only team that has been kicked out of a somewhat major conference was Temple, but they were a football only member of the Big East back then.

Now, if people are talking about the top of the Big Ten, SEC and others walking away from their current structures and bringing only the best with them, then I guess that can happen. But if we are talking about the Big Ten and SEC taking over the college sports world, it will be with Rutgers, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, multiple Mississippi schools, and others we deem unworthy riding the wave.

 

[HuskyHawk]

Northwestern (along with Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Purdue, Wisconsin and Chicago) was a charter member of the conference that would become the Big Ten. They will not be booted.

A lot of Boneyarders are convinced that Northwestern (and maybe Rutgers) and Vanderbilt are going to be booted from the Big Ten and SEC respectively. They also reference BC, Wake Forest, Oregon State, Oklahoma State, etc. being booted or at least "left behind." I don't necessarily disagree about these schools potentially being left behind, but I haven't seen anything to make me believe that they will be kicked out of their conferences. I'm not even sure they can be kicked out for simply not being profitable enough. To my knowledge, the only team that has been kicked out of a somewhat major conference was Temple, but they were a football only member of the Big East back then.

Now, if people are talking about the top of the Big Ten, SEC and others walking away from their current structures and bringing only the best with them, then I guess that can happen. But if we are talking about the Big Ten and SEC taking over the college sports world, it will be with Rutgers, Northwestern, Vanderbilt, multiple Mississippi schools, and others we deem unworthy riding the wave.

You guys misinterpret what I'm saying.

As long as there is a "Big Ten" and "SEC", there will be an ACC and something else cobbled together from the B12/PAC, along with the lower tier conferences. And no, nobody gets booted.

There isn't going to be a "super conference" until those old names go away, and it's a new collection of just the top 40-50 football programs, which would probably be aligned more like the NFL than any conference that exists today. Northwestern isn't getting invited to that, if it happens. Indeed, one of the primary reasons to do it is to leave those programs behind and stop sharing revenue with them (for football).

 

[aburks41]

ACC has to make a move now but there really isn't anyone besides UConn out there for them to poach. Unless they can convince KU/WVU to join too, but idk. This just doesn't seem all that good for us tbh. The B1G is never going to come calling our name so our best bet was the ACC expanding and bringing us in. But now the PAC is dead and the ACC is stuck

 

[Waquoit]

People still believe Joe Paterno?

 

[upstater]

This Pac12 news seems absurd.

It shouldn't be those 6 schools looking to join the ranks of TCU, Cincy, UCF, Houston, BYU and Kansas St, but rather Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas looking to join Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal.

 

[huskymedic]

 

[upstater]

People still believe Joe Paterno?

It's not an either/or proposition. His story lines up with Crouthamel's

 

[McLovin]

ACC has to make a move now but there really isn't anyone besides UConn out there for them to poach. Unless they can convince KU/WVU to join too, but idk. This just doesn't seem all that good for us tbh. The B1G is never going to come calling our name so our best bet was the ACC expanding and bringing us in. But now the PAC is dead and the ACC is stuck

So Arizona and Oregon want to join a conference with UCF and Cincinnati? Shows how desperate they must be lmao.

And I wonder how much the Big 12 schools are going to regret their knee jerk expansion last summer.

 

[ThabeetDown]

So Arizona and Oregon want to join a conference with UCF and Cincinnati? Shows how desperate they must be lmao.

They don't really have a choice. Pac 12 is obviously dead -- they're going to be getting new AAC-level money after they merge with the Mountain West once those 6 schools leave. Big 12 puts those 6 in the best possible situation.

Can't wait for that Friday night 10pm ET Stanford-San Jose State crosstown rivalry game on CBSSN though...

 

[shizzle787]

This Pac12 news seems absurd.

It shouldn't be those 6 schools looking to join the ranks of TCU, Cincy, UCF, Houston, BYU and Kansas St, but rather Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas looking to join Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal.

Of course. The Big 12 is being loud because the Pac-12 is moving in silence with the better plan.

 

[McLovin]

They don't really have a choice. Pac 12 is obviously dead -- they're going to be getting new AAC-level money after they merge with the Mountain West once those 6 schools leave. Big 12 puts those 6 in the best possible situation.

Can't wait for that Friday night 10pm ET Stanford-San Jose State crosstown rivalry game on CBSSN though...

Stanford will be in the BIG if ND gets added. My guess is that’s a “package deal” for teams number 17 and 18.

Would have thought Oregon (and possibly UW) would be teams 19 and 20 for the BIG, but since they are looking for plan B here, maybe those prospects seem bleak.

 

[HuskyHawk]

This Pac12 news seems absurd.

It shouldn't be those 6 schools looking to join the ranks of TCU, Cincy, UCF, Houston, BYU and Kansas St, but rather Texas Tech, Oklahoma State and Kansas looking to join Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Stanford and Cal.

You're thinking like an academic. From Tramel's article:

When Texas and Oklahoma announced they were leaving last year, the remaining eight Big 12 members essentially put themselves on the open market. No one stopped to pick them up. That gave them solidarity by reality, which has birthed a stable union that blossomed by adding UCF, BYU, Cincinnati and Houston.

"We're more galvanized than we've ever been," a league source said. "There's no interest by Big 12 members going to the Pac-12 or ACC."

And this

The most logical play for the Big 12 remains going after Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah. In a realignment landscape that often doesn't make sense, those four schools would fit both competitively and geographically. All four would have realistic ambition to win the Big 12 while putting rivals Utah and BYU in the same league.

For those four schools, hitching their futures to Oregon and Washington in some sort of rearranged Pac-12 would likely be a short-term relationship, as it's probable the Ducks and Huskies will be looking across the financial moat over to the Big Ten. Even, perhaps, at a discounted rate.

That said, WVU would jump to the ACC if they could and so would Cincinnati or Central Florida. In fact, the Big 12 would probably welcome that, as it would give them better options to fully merge with the PAC.

 

[aburks41]

In an alternate would we may end up with Duke, Louisville, Cuse, Pitt, and BC (except we say no to them) in the Big East once the ACC falls apart. That would be incredible

 

[BlueWhiteOrange]

Should the acc make a play for best of pac12? Get Stanford-UW-Oregon-?Colorado. Make a western pod. Big10 is already coast to coast, why not acc. ND gets to play Stanford, one more conference game and can keep independence until GOR expires. ESPN adds west coast fox products, might increase acc payout.
acc becomes a stronger league

 

[aburks41]

Should the acc make a play for best of pac12? Get Stanford-UW-Oregon-?Colorado. Make a western pod. Big10 is already coast to coast, why not acc. ND gets to play Stanford, one more conference game and can keep independence until GOR expires. ESPN adds west coast fox products, might increase acc payout.
acc becomes a stronger league

Because at the end of the day, Clemson/FSU are not going to be happy unless they are making the $100M/yr that the SEC schools are about to make.

 

[ThabeetDown]

Stanford will be in the BIG if ND gets added. My guess is that’s a “package deal” for teams number 17 and 18.

Would have thought Oregon (and possibly UW) would be teams 19 and 20 for the BIG, but since they are looking for plan B here, maybe those prospects seem bleak.

It all hinges on ND for so many dominos. If ND pledges itself fully to ACC, ACC probably becomes safe because they can safely re-negotiate their GOR to appease Clemson/FSU/UNC/etc.

If ND can get out of their ACC agreement (legal battle) it will go to the B10 and then Stanford probably gets the pity invite. In that case, I could see Wash/Ore maybe getting in as 19/20 to solidify a west coast B10 (5 is better than 2) but at the end of the day, Wash/Ore just don't really make the $ big enough to offset the smaller piece of the pie. Stanford has more appeal b/c of the ND winfall it would bring/having a Bay Area school isn't a bad thing. But I don't see why the B10 would have ANY appeal in Wash/Ore ultimately (which is why those two should go to the B12 where they have appeal to them).

ND staying Indy would really put the ACC in a tough, but not impossible place. Even grabbing let's say a WVU (which I think WVU would welcome and frankly the B12) doesn't do enough to keep Clemson/FSU/UNC happy when they're still not getting SEC money. ESPN in a tricky spot where they don't want to cannibalize the ACC, but if they can make more money with a Clemson/FSU SEC than what a new-ACC looks like, they would of course do it.

In an ACC where Clemson/FSU leaves for SEC, ESPN would need to do everything in it's power to keep UNC and really double-down on basketball at that point. This is really the only scenario where a Kansas/UConn could come into play, but unsure if they could keep the ACC at its current $ level without Clemson/FSU since they draw so much in terms of football revenue.

 

[BlueWhiteOrange]

Because at the end of the day, Clemson/FSU are not going to be happy unless they are making the $100M/yr that the SEC schools are about to make.

True, but they might have to wait awhile because of the GOR. Until that happens, the west coast pod would make the acc stronger

 

[Ports21]

If ND stays independent (which I can't fathom how they will at this point) then the ACC will die. If they join the BIG, the ACC will die.

It's only hope is ND joining.

I think I read that the ACC gets to renegotiate their media rights before contract expire ONLY if they reach 16 teams. They have 14 now, so if they get ND and WVU maybe that allows them to renegotiate and save it.

If not, Clemson, Miami, FSU are going SEC. The GOR doesn't matter enough. The difference in them getting left behind by all the money pouring into the super conferences and prestige would cost them far more in the end.

As it stands there's more money on the BIG deal, so if given the choice would any of those three go to the BIG instead of SEC despite the regional differences?

ND is the domino. Once that falls, I think everything else will rather quickly.

 

[bendm]

Stanford will be in the BIG if ND gets added. My guess is that’s a “package deal” for teams number 17 and 18.

Would have thought Oregon (and possibly UW) would be teams 19 and 20 for the BIG, but since they are looking for plan B here, maybe those prospects seem bleak.

only if the assumption is that they need to end up with an even number of teams

the acc has 15 football teams if you count ND. if you get rid of divisions, which the acc and the conference formerly known as the pac 12 just did, you can have an odd number