Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="TruDomGopher, post: 1259362, member: 4159"] "I think the more educational we are, the more sustainable we are. . .When you monetize everything that can be monetized, it opens up the discussion about what you do as your primary purpose, of what you're about. So I think the more you go into that commercial area of exploitation, the more you're going to get these questions raised. . .the dialogue ought to be about education. It ought to be about opportunities. It ought to be about fairness. It ought to be less about, you know, return on investment and year over year and all that." Jim Delany, February 2015 Delany, of course, is just the spokesman for the 14 presidents/chancellors of the Big Ten, but there has been some real soul searching going on with the academic/athletic internal politics, the O Bannon suit, and what not. I know Kaler has remarked on this as well. I can't pull the info off the top of my head, but somewhere back in time--and I think this may have had to do with the decision to bypass Missouri--one of the top dogs, if not Delany himself--said that the B1G had made the conscious decision that they would [U]not[/U] be "conference busters" and would limit expansion invites to one only from a conference. Now that was some time ago, but I suspect they are going to continue with that philosophy. Which begs a most interesting question: Would the Big Ten take two ACC teams? Could they say no if UVa and VT wanted to double team or nothing, or what if UVa and UNC both wanted in? Would they say "no" and then try to pair one with UConn? I don't know the answer, but I do find the question interesting. I think there are some scenarios where the B1G would have trouble saying "no" too, even if the long term implications are bad. Kinda like me at the bar on Saturday night at closing time. . . [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach