Missouri still a possibility for the B1G?

[UCFBfan]

The reality that Rutgers will be in the B1G in a year is all the evidence anyone needs to realize that we all have no clue what will happen even two years from now. Would anyone guess that would have happened two years ago?

So to assume that we'll be in the AAC for awhile and not get out should we maintain our level of play in bball and increase it in fball is stupid if you ask me. Keep hope alive.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Srqhusky]

With the exception of Maryland and Rutgers the next team to go has been the best team in the conference. Therefore our job is to be the best team in the conference and focus on that. Susan an give delaney a bj and it wouldn't change anything.
We need fans in the seat an a few years of winning. We need to create a bandwagon

 

[CL82]

It's actually not maybe anymore.

The fevered delusions we read now are actually the opposite of interesting at this point.

[Insert obligatory "Don't click on the thread then" quasi-retort here.]

 

[uconnbill]

It's actually not maybe anymore.

The fevered delusions we read now are actually the opposite of interesting at this point.

Do you honestly think that conferences are set and there won't be anymore expansions? I don't think that expansion is over by any means.

 

[whaler11]

Do you honestly think that conferences are set and there won't be anymore expansions? I don't think that expansion is over by any means.

The ACC, SEC, PAC and Big 10 are done for at least 5 years. The Big 12 may need to get back to 12 in a timeframe shorter than that - but it's not going to be two directional schools 90 minutes from each other with no fanbases.

 

[uconnbill]

The ACC, SEC, PAC and Big 10 are done for at least 5 years. The Big 12 may need to get back to 12 in a timeframe shorter than that - but it's not going to be two directional schools 90 minutes from each other with no fanbases.

I think your wrong about the Big 10. If you think they will just sit tight then I think you are sadly mistaken. This is far from over. I am not saying UCONN is the next school but this is not done by any means.

How did you come to this conclusion? Just curious

 

[whaler11]

I think your wrong about the Big 10. If you think they will just sit tight then I think you are sadly mistaken. This is far from over. I am not saying UCONN is the next school but this is not done by any means.

It's a pretty simple conclusion. Every school worth a damn is in the SEC or tied up by a GOR except for UConn, BYU and if you squint Cinci and USF.

 

[Point6]

Where is Buffalo Lion when we need him?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yes Waylon, it was posted as an epiphany. Shouldn't you get back to shutting down the football program so UConn can play basketball with Seton Hall?

That would have been a lot better path than the one Herbst chose.

 

[UConn990411]

I think you are the first person in the entire world to realize that. Thanks for your tremendous insight.

It's not whaler's fault that he's an incessant a**.

I think it was declared a disease the same day as obesity.

 

[whaler11]

That would have been a lot better path than the one Herbst chose.

It wouldn't be but that won't stop you from saying that every few days.

 

[Point6]

Wait, no discussion of Buffalo as a potential B1G 10 travel partner candidate? awkward

 

[Coach Flood]

The reality that Rutgers will be in the B1G in a year is all the evidence anyone needs to realize that we all have no clue what will happen even two years from now. Would anyone guess that would have happened two years ago?

Yes, we knew about this 3 years ago as a matter of fact. Had my bags packed since then...

(you guys should all read this first article...it talks about what the big ten really wants...airport etc.)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...tic-center-big-ten-network-penn-state-rutgers

(and this guy says he's been calling for RU to join since 1992)
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2010/03/rutgers_remains_most_intriguin.html

 

[UConn9604]

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/01/if_the_big_ten_does_expand_it.html

 

[Coach Flood]

http://www.cleveland.com/livingston/index.ssf/2010/01/if_the_big_ten_does_expand_it.html

Ours was actually a study paid for by the Big10....the study concluded that RU was the most ideal candidate. I believe the study also mentioned Missouri as a final candidate.

Also, your article is 100% invalid since the Big10 took Rutgers...which means your article was pure speculation without facts. Expansion in the northeast is over.

 

[woomba]

Ours was actually a study paid for by the Big10....the study concluded that RU was the most ideal candidate. I believe the study also mentioned Missouri as a final candidate.

Also, your article is 100% invalid since the Big10 took Rutgers...which means your article was pure speculation without facts. Expansion in the northeast is over.

Man, you guys have some serious revisionist history going on there now that you guys are in the Big Ten. Rutgers was part of a group of 5 schools (Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, ND) in that study. The only conclusion from that study was that any one of those schools (and others not analyzed) are all good additions.

You're right that the Big Ten had Rutgers in their crosshairs for a while now - but no more than other schools in their candidate list. It was the circumstances surrounding the availability of additions of #13+#14 that pushed Rutgers in over the schools at that time - so just enjoy the good fortune for what it is.

 

[UConn9604]

Ours was actually a study paid for by the Big10....the study concluded that RU was the most ideal candidate. I believe the study also mentioned Missouri as a final candidate.

Also, your article is 100% invalid since the Big10 took Rutgers...which means your article was pure speculation without facts. Expansion in the northeast is over.

Your logic is troublesome. The first link (to the Teddy Greenstein column) was just as speculative as the link I provided (to the Bill Livingston column). Your second link was to an article about an article, which expressly stated, in a direct quote, "The Tribune story provided no enlightenment as to the parameters the of the study nor specific conclusions." From those links you knew, "as a matter of fact," that Rutgers was headed to the Big Ten? Really?

At about the same time as your "study," Bill Livingston -- who has been reporting on the Big Ten for the Plain Dealer since Teddy Greenstein was 10 years old -- clearly stated his opinions that the Big Ten "should focus on Connecticut, and I have reason to believe that is exactly what is happening at Big Ten headquarters in Chicago"; that "UConn, however, ought to be a very appealing substitute [for Notre Dame], and I believe Big Ten officials see it that way, too"; that "[a]nother Big East program with appeal is New Jersey-based Rutgers. But UConn brings more," and that "[t]he schools I mentioned are in the mix. This is not pie in the sky."

Now, obviously, as of today, Rutgers is in and UConn is not, but your assumption that the Livingston article "was pure speculation without facts" and that the Greenstein article was 100% accurate, just because Greenstein was right and Livingston was not (as of today), is about as stupid as failing to fire Mike Rice, hiring Eddie Jordan, or firing Tim Pernetti and replacing him with Julie Hermann. (OK, so, maybe not that stupid.)

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Man, you guys have some serious revisionist history going on there now that you guys are in the Big Ten. Rutgers was part of a group of 5 schools (Missouri, Rutgers, Syracuse, Pitt, ND) in that study. The only conclusion from that study was that any one of those schools (and others not analyzed) are all good additions.

You're right that the Big Ten had Rutgers in their crosshairs for a while now - but no more than other schools in their candidate list. It was the circumstances surrounding the availability of additions of #13+#14 that pushed Rutgers in over the schools at that time - so just enjoy the good fortune for what it is.

Based on what I have seen in the press and on blogs, it is also widely believed that the B1G has been nosing around Maryland for a while now as it an AAU member, state flagship university, in the middle of a massive TV DMA (Baltimore/Washington) and could serve as a spring board into the southeast. Many doubted that one of the ACC founders would leave for the B1G; but Deborah Yow financial’s stewardship forced Maryland’s hand as they needed more money now to plug their massive financial hole.
Rutgerswanted the B1G. Maryland needed the B1G. A marriage made in heaven (or UConn’s hell).

 

[frankthetank]

Yes, we knew about this 3 years ago as a matter of fact. Had my bags packed since then...

(you guys should all read this first article...it talks about what the big ten really wants...airport etc.)
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...tic-center-big-ten-network-penn-state-rutgers

(and this guy says he's been calling for RU to join since 1992)
http://blog.pennlive.com/davidjones/2010/03/rutgers_remains_most_intriguin.html

Yeah, I'm personally extremely skeptical that Rutgers in the Big Ten will pay off for the conference, but it is not a surprise at all that they were ultimately picked. They were pretty openly discussed as a legitimate target of the Big Ten from the first day that Jim Delany announced that the league wanted to expand back in 2009. Maryland has also been long discussed as a potential Big Ten target - it was just more of a matter of the belief that schools were much less likely to bolt the ACC compared to the Big 12 and Big East. So, the only surprise there was that Delany was actually able to convince them to leave the ACC. The timing of the Big Ten's latest expansion was definitely out of the blue, but their specific picks of Rutgers and Maryland were hardly shocking to anyone paying attention to the league's moves over the past 3 years.

 

[pj]

Based on expansion criteria listed by B1G presidents and officials, it is a near certainty that Rutgers was ticketed ahead of UConn because: (1) Rutgers is AAU, Uconn is not; (2) Rutgers was contiguous to B1G territory (Penn State), UConn was not; (3) Rutgers is the flagship university of a state with 9 million people, UConn of a state with 3.6 million people -- thus Rutgers likely brings more cable households and money.

Rutgers was a good get for the B1G. So is UConn. The question is: they have been very picky and patient. They waited on Rutgers, a valuable school, until they had a solid partner in Maryland. They rejected Missouri who is AAU and brings a 6 million population state. Now, it seems B1G schools are more open to expansion than in the past, but we may have a very narrow window to assemble an attractive application before they sign new TV contracts. After the contracts are concluded, it may be difficult for new schools to increase per-school revenue at the existing schools.

It seems that the B1G was picky and rejected Missouri because they hoped to expand into the southeast with Virginia and UNC and Ga Tech. Now that the ACC looks solid, perhaps they'll reconsider the merits of Missouri and UConn. Or perhaps they'll look to a B12 expansion seeking Kansas/Oklahoma/Texas. I think the next 3 years are going to be interesting in realignment, only a few moves are left on the board and it will be interesting to see if they happen.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Based on expansion criteria listed by B1G presidents and officials, it is a near certainty that Rutgers was ticketed ahead of UConn because: (1) Rutgers is AAU, Uconn is not; (2) Rutgers was contiguous to B1G territory (Penn State), UConn was not; (3) Rutgers is the flagship university of a state with 9 million people, UConn of a state with 3.6 million people -- thus Rutgers likely brings more cable households and money.

Rutgers was a good get for the B1G. So is UConn. The question is: they have been very picky and patient. They waited on Rutgers, a valuable school, until they had a solid partner in Maryland. They rejected Missouri who is AAU and brings a 6 million population state. Now, it seems B1G schools are more open to expansion than in the past, but we may have a very narrow window to assemble an attractive application before they sign new TV contracts. After the contracts are concluded, it may be difficult for new schools to increase per-school revenue at the existing schools.

It seems that the B1G was picky and rejected Missouri because they hoped to expand into the southeast with Virginia and UNC and Ga Tech. Now that the ACC looks solid, perhaps they'll reconsider the merits of Missouri and UConn. Or perhaps they'll look to a B12 expansion seeking Kansas/Oklahoma/Texas. I think the next 3 years are going to be interesting in realignment, only a few moves are left on the board and it will be interesting to see if they happen.

I agree. From a ‘big’ picture standpoint nothing has changed as it was widely expected that the Big E would explode. Just sucks for UConn that we were the one left without a seat when the music stopped this round. The 2 big lynchpins continue to be Texas (XII) and UNC (ACC). As long as those two schools remain happy where they are, there will only be changes along the edges while the major conferences (ACC, B1G, PAC, SEC, XII) remain intact. Should one of those two schools bolt, then all hell will break lose and there will only be 4 major conferences standing (B1G, PAC, SEC, and ACC or XII) with 16 to 20 schools each at the end of the day. If this does happen and the ACC is the conference to fail, ND, the last key player, will be forced to give-up independence and likely move to the B1G.

 

[spsct]

That would have been a lot better path than the one Herbst chose.

Not if I don't give crap about basketball and only care about football.