Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell. | Page 1011 | The Boneyard
.-.

Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

bendm said:
TLDR but UVA is a garbage football program. 0% chance they’re invited to sec or BIG and the big12 would take Lville and Pitt over them, Not to mention NC State and VTech. Do not reply with something about academics. if the BIG still cared about academics they would have taken Cal & Stanford. Both have better academics and football pedigrees than UVA.
Expand ...
The Big 10 was interested in Stanford/Cal, but FOX was not. Oregon and Washington got an invite because they accepted half media shares.
 
Fishy said:
You do not have any clue how any of this works.
Expand ...
So Why would Fox/ESPN think UVA is more valuable than Cal or Stanford? Or any other ACC school for that matter? Historically UVA probably has the worst football program in the conference.
 
bendm said:
So Why would Fox/ESPN think UVA is more valuable than Cal or Stanford? Or any other ACC school for that matter? Historically UVA probably has the worst football program in the conference.
Expand ...
The value of schools is shifting back to the long term model; total endowment, total student population, amount of state support, academic stature, amount of living alumni, does your school bring two senators that your conf doesn’t already have?

Football record matters- but near term and long term economic and political clout also matter.
 
Exit 4 said:
The value of schools is shifting back to the long term model; total endowment, total student population, amount of state support, academic stature, amount of living alumni, does your school bring two senators that your conf doesn’t already have?

Football record matters- but near term and long term economic and political clout also matter.
Expand ...

I’d like to believe this, but until schools are dropped from existing conferences due to the updated metrics I cannot.
 
My review of internet re adding a new member...what may be considered..

  • Revenue sharing: Conferences evaluate how a new member will impact revenue distribution among existing schools. They seek institutions that increase the total revenue pot through larger media deals, corporate sponsorships, and ticket sales.
  • Brand value: A school with a strong national brand and large, engaged alumni base is more attractive. This increases season ticket sales, donations, and the overall marketing appeal of the conference.
  • Viability and sustainability: The financial stability of the prospective member is assessed to ensure they can sustain a competitive athletics program without being a financial drain on the conference.
  • Media market: Expanding into a new, large media market is a top priority for most major conferences. This grows the conference's audience, which translates into more lucrative media rights deals.
  • On-field competitiveness: The prospective member's athletic prestige is a significant factor. A school with successful, high-profile sports (particularly football and men's basketball) can elevate the conference's overall strength and draw in more viewers.
  • Recruiting access: Expansion may be driven by a desire to gain access to new talent pools in a different region, which can improve recruiting for all conference members.
  • Good fit: A prospective member's overall institutional identity and values must align with the existing conference culture. This ensures long-term stability and harmony among the members.
  • Alumni presence: Beyond simply increasing the market, a school's alumni network is a key factor. A large, geographically diverse alumni base helps to drive ticket sales and donations.
  • Geographic footprint: Conferences evaluate how a new member's location fits with the existing membership. A closer geographical fit can reduce travel costs and enhance regional rivalries, while a distant location can open up new markets but dramatically increase travel time and expense.
    Regional rivalries:     The addition of a school can help create or preserve regional rivalries, which are important for maintaining fan engagement.
 
bendm said:
Historically UVA probably has the worst football program in the conference.
Expand ...
That distinction goes to Wake Forest. Wake Forest entered the ACC in 1953 while Virginia entered in 1954. Using 1954 as the start year, WF averages 4.35 wins and 6.77 losses vs. Virginia's 4.99 wins and 6.30 losses. Puke is second worst during that same time with an average of 4.61 wins and 6.45 losses.
 
.-.
bendm said:
TLDR but UVA is a garbage football program. 0% chance they’re invited to sec or BIG and the big12 would take Lville and Pitt over them, Not to mention NC State and VTech. Do not reply with something about academics. if the BIG still cared about academics they would have taken Cal & Stanford. Both have better academics and football pedigrees than UVA.
Expand ...
The B1G will take Cal & Stanford at some point, it likely is more than a decade out however. Oregon and Washington were only added as early as they were due to a) the PAC imploding and b) their willingness to join at a greatly discounted price.

The end game in this is for the B1G to grow to 24 members, four divisions of six schools. Once they gat there the west coast will be UCLA, USC, Cal, Stanford, Oregon and Washington.

I'm pretty confident that UNC and Virginia are part of their ideal east coast division.
 
KryHavok said:
That distinction goes to Wake Forest. Wake Forest entered the ACC in 1953 while Virginia entered in 1954. Using 1954 as the start year, WF averages 4.35 wins and 6.77 losses vs. Virginia's 4.99 wins and 6.30 losses. Puke is second worst during that same time with an average of 4.61 wins and 6.45 losses.
Expand ...

It is relative...of late, or all time...Wake has beaten Virginia their last 5 match ups...Virginia has had 3 winning seasons in the last 15 and Wake has had 8....Wake has 8 bowl wins since 2000.....Virginia has 4.
 
Exit 4 said:
The value of schools is shifting back to the long term model; total endowment, total student population, amount of state support, academic stature, amount of living alumni, does your school bring two senators that your conf doesn’t already have?

Football record matters- but near term and long term economic and political clout also matter.
Expand ...
Stop it! You are just trying to find a justification. The Big 10 has made some inexplicable choices particularly in Rutgers and Maryland which seem to have been cable driven. They seem to have returned to a football oriented process in the last round. Bringing in Virginia and even UNC would be a return to the Rutgers model without the access to cable carriage fees. Next you’ll be telling us they are doing it because they think Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy!!
 
.-.
billybud said:
It is relative...of late, or all time...Wake has beaten Virginia their last 5 match ups...Virginia has had 3 winning seasons in the last 15 and Wake has had 8....Wake has 8 bowl wins since 2000.....Virginia has 4.
Expand ...
Wake and duke were my next guesses. no one is arguing on behalf of wake being a valuable addition to the P3, and rightfully so, and duke is in its own category thanks to having the most valuable bball brand in the country
 
freescooter said:
Stop it! You are just trying to find a justification. The Big 10 has made some inexplicable choices particularly in Rutgers and Maryland which seem to have been cable driven. They seem to have returned to a football oriented process in the last round. Bringing in Virginia and even UNC would be a return to the Rutgers model without the access to cable carriage fees. Next you’ll be telling us they are doing it because they think Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy!!
Expand ...
I don't think bringing in Rutgers and Maryland was a bad move over the long run, but neither school has shown much so far. Both of those schools have football potential if they get alumni/donors to support them and they make the right coaching hire. Schiano and Locksley are not the right coaches. Look at Iowa. Middle of nowhere with no local recruiting base and from 1961 until 1980, they were bad until they hired Hayden Fry.
 
Exit 4 said:
The value of schools is shifting back to the long term model; total endowment, total student population, amount of state support, academic stature, amount of living alumni, does your school bring two senators that your conf doesn’t already have?

Football record matters- but near term and long term economic and political clout also matter.
Expand ...
So then where’s our BIG invite?? We check 5 of those 6 boxes. All but endowment.
 
UConnJim said:
I don't think bringing in Rutgers and Maryland was a bad move over the long run, but neither school has shown much so far. Both of those schools have football potential if they get alumni/donors to support them and they make the right coaching hire. Schiano and Locksley are not the right coaches. Look at Iowa. Middle of nowhere with no local recruiting base and from 1961 until 1980, they were bad until they hired Hayden Fry.
Expand ...
When the Big Ten brought in Rutgers and Maryland, there was a P5. The ACC, Big 12 and Big Ten were just feeding from the Big East buffet and yes, Maryland was the biggest surprise leaving the ACC. I don't think the B1G envisioned a complete consolidation to a P2 and having the Big Ten invite the PAC schools and having the SEC invite Texas and Oklahoma. If they envisioned this is how things would play out, I don't think they would have invited Rutgers and Maryland. Every program has football potential if you have P2 money and hire great coaches. It's been 11 years and Rutgers and Maryland are just barely average programs.
 
freescooter said:
The Big 10 has made some inexplicable choices particularly in Rutgers and Maryland which seem to have been cable driven.
Expand ...
Those choices are readily explainable. You may not like the explanation, but there is no doubt it made financial sense.
 
.-.
Kolumbo said:
Dave Portnoy: bringing UConn, the Big 12, and Connecticut Pizza together
Expand ...
If all we have to do to get Iowa State's vote is build a Sally's in Ames then that is a very good deal.
 
freescooter said:
Stop it! You are just trying to find a justification. The Big 10 has made some inexplicable choices particularly in Rutgers and Maryland which seem to have been cable driven. They seem to have returned to a football oriented process in the last round. Bringing in Virginia and even UNC would be a return to the Rutgers model without the access to cable carriage fees. Next you’ll be telling us they are doing it because they think Thomas Jefferson was a smart guy!!
Expand ...
Its all about economics...never really been about winning. And as we enter the new world of the prof paid athlete model - its all about economic capacity and depth.
 
Stinger92860 said:
I’d like to believe this, but until schools are dropped from existing conferences due to the updated metrics I cannot.
Expand ...
I don't see how conferences are going to drop schools. At least not for a long while yet. They would need to fail to meet certain min spending levels on sports, some sort of objective criteria that is not W-L related.
 
Kolumbo said:
Every program has football potential if you have P2 money and hire great coaches. It's been 11 years and Rutgers and Maryland are just barely average programs.
Expand ...
Maryland has had 3 head coaches (plus an interim) since joining the Big 10: Edsall, DJ Durkin, and Mike Locksley. I wouldn't call any of them great coaches. Rutgers has had 3 coaches as well: Flood, Ash, and Schiano. Again, not good coaches. Schiano has not had a winning Big 10 record in any season and he is 13-34 in the Big 10 since he returned.
 
.-.
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
314
Guests online
5,960
Total visitors
6,274
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,908
Messages
4,459,806
Members
10,331
Latest member
Sir Oolick


Top Bottom