Rutgers Role in the Big Ten

[HawkHusky]

JMHO...Maryland's role in CR is playing out like it is because both their current president and athletic director came from B1G institutions. They had no idea about UMD's place in forming the ACC, or, how it would play going forward. Along with the Under Armour guy (a UMD grad), they made a plan to exit the league for the B1G.

They got what they wanted, much to the dismay of many alumni and supporters. Some of whom are still not onboard with the move. But, its a done deal, and, I wish them good luck going forward. They are going to need it.

Interesting you brought that up since both UCONN's President and AD are also from B1G institutions.

 

[billybud]

Old BE failed because it was made up of bunch of schools that have little in common. Look at the ACC today and you got the same situation.

You got two state flagships in UNC and UVA. You got bunch of secondary state schools like Pitt, NC State, FSU, Clemson etc. You got bunch of private schools because Miami wanted some of them in the conference. All those schools will have different agendas when the time comes when one or two schools have wondering eyes. Also, ACC got the ND factor now just like the old BE. The only thing tying everything together is ESPiN with their exclusive ACC content contract. BE blew up because most of the schools all thought grass was greener on the other side. Schools were easy picking for other conferences because NO ONE trusted anyone else. Even Pitt and Cuse were added in complete secrecy. ACC operated like ninja at night. Swofford is one of the biggest slimballs in the CR but he knew what he was doing by playing schools off each other. Swofford basically told SU and Pitt that if they won't accept, other BE schools will etc. etc. BE was an easy target. ACC today with bunch of schools with different makeups, will go through this sooner or later.

B1G added RU because 1) it is a state state flagship 2) In the big media market 3) AAU. They are similar to other schools in the B1G. Yeah I agree RU sucks in everything but they might get B1G Network in NJ. Rest of the B1G schools can look forward to bunch of easy wins for years to come. I can't believe I am defending RU. I already feel ill from doing that.

Anyway, I would love to have UCONN in the same conference as UVA or UNC, but not some of the other schools. I hope our admin is doing everything we can to get into the B1G because that's a much better for us in the long term.

 

[billybud]

FSU is one of the TWO Florida Flagship schools...as officially designated by the state legislature.

Both Florida and FSU are the state flagship schools...despite your assumption.

 

[pj]

Cuse or Pitt didn't vote on L'ville (not that anyone else in the ACC would care if they did), and my post was about why Ville got picked ahead of UConn. L'ville is closer than Storrs to everyone else in the conference.

Geographic distance is not the key criterion, travel time and expense is. By the means of transportation actually used, the trip to UConn takes less or the same time, and less or the same money, as the trip to Louisville.

Risk is relative. Is the ACC strategy above more or less risky than taking UConn but leaving Pitt and Louisville for the B1G/B12? Yes, I realize B12 passed over L'ville in 2011 but by 2012 that probably would've changed. Also for the next round of CR armegeddon, the individual ACC schools - not just the ACC conference - also need optionality. If the ACC and/or B12 were to blow up, say if FSU/Clem went SEC and UVA/UNC went B1G, then the remainder ACC schools would probably want some geographic rationale to at least talk to the Ok St's and Kansas' of the world. And - unfortunately for UConn - the perception is that UConn will always be there if needed.

How is the ACC harmed by having the B12 take Louisville and Cincinnati? The ACC would be fine adding UConn and UCF/USF. It's hard to see any end game where the B12 is a more attractive destination for the top ACC schools than B1G or SEC, or for the lesser ACC schools than an eastern conference. Blocking the B12 has no benefits for the ACC.

 

[SouthronCross]

I am not defending Maryland's actions; but, I suspect that a significant part of their 'deception' was aimed at internal parties and ACC was collateral damage. I see this a lot in M&A work in the corporate world that I am in. Basically, Maryland realized how bad shape they were in financially and the ACC could not offer enough money to help. Somebody within Maryland (likely on the academic side because perception wise, the B1G is the stronger academic conference) drops a dime to the B1G, who has had an interest in the DC market for years, who then rides in a white knight carrying a lot of cash. Maryland runs the numbers and realizes the B1Gc an save their financial necks; but, they know that a move from the ACC to the B1G will raise hell with the alumni network, which would negatively impact their two big current financial backers - private donors and the state government in Annapolis. Thus, a small group hammers out the move in a black box and then once it is ready, use a shock & awe campaign to get the deal done before anyone internally can react.

That is a wholly logical and plausible take on what might've happened. It might've very well be the outcome of an internal struggle within UMD. I honestly had never even considered that scenario. It would explain a lot of the covert way things went down.

I honestly do not fault the ACC for losing Maryland. I think it was a done deal before the ACC even knew about the deal. I do fault the ACC for being very short-sighted by grabbing Louisville, a flash in the pan school with suspect long-term benefits (Strong/Bridgewater leaving, Yum Center bankruptcy, academics, etc.) and for allowing ND in as a partial member. Those two actions look very Big E'ish setting-up a member who only cares about itself (ND) and a split between football focused schools and basketball focused schools. Tat didn't work out well for the Big E.

The one major difference I see between the ACC and the former Big East is that we do not have any basketball-only schools. Everybody plays football. Certainly not at a level that the likes of FSU, Miami, Tech, and, Clemson would want, but, everybody still plays it.

I always wondered why the FB schools within the old BE didn't just split into their own league. You all would have been a fantastic league for both sports.

That said, due to markets and Austin politicians; I believe that the ACC has a stronger chance of lasting than the XII when this all shakes out to 4x 18x major conferences.

Like has been said before, as long as FSU, CU, UVA, and, UNC are all committed to the ACC, the league will survive. If either of them waffle just a bit, who knows what might happen?

 

[CL82]

Would we still be the dirtiest conference if we'd invited you back in 2011, instead of either Pitt or 'Cuse? I bet not.

Your own former hypocritical piece of dirt commissioner, Mike Tranghese, tried to sell Big East football down the river as far back as 1999. That NEVER gets mentioned. Then, when Swofford did make his move on the BE, he is all of a sudden the worst human being on earth?

That makes no sense.

None of us here are griping about UMD leaving. We want them to meet their legal obligations to the league first, before they go.

One of those 'obligations' won't include ponying up $50M but I think that you agree with that.

For what it is worth, I have no objection to the ACC yanking MD around for a while. I also think that Swofford did a good job of keeping his conference intact. I don't begrudge him that at all. I do thinking that the conference moves are reactionary rather than strategic and may cost him in the long run. But in the near term, he did an amazing job.

Even if we were invited to the ACC tomorrow, which we all know isn't going to happen, I'd still have a lot of bad feelings about being yanked around. That isn't to say that I wouldn't be happy about it, I would.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Couple of things happened when ACC took UL:

5) We will see how long UNC/UVA will like when B1G is getting close to double of revenue what ACC schools are getting. Those are probably the only 2 schools B1G would want in the long term.

The B1G is defiantly interested in UVA and UNC. If the ACC shows any cracks, I suspect that UVA will jump quickly. UNC less so as they seem to be split between pro B1G academics and pro athletics SEC. If the B1G gets UNC, then G-Tech is on the table as it is a major AAU school with some football history and in the middle of a major TV/alumni center for the B1G (think Rutgers in a smaller TV market; but, better sports). If G-Tech is added making the B1G academic happy, then Florida St. is on the table as they would want the football brand name in the same way the B1G took Nebraska or would take Oklahoma as part of a package to get Texas.

All said in done, I still believe that the ACC will be one of the 4 final conferences as it has better markets than the XII and while it has issues, none are larger than the issue that the XII has with Texas.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Like has been said before, as long as FSU, CU, UVA, and, UNC are all committed to the ACC, the league will survive. If either of them waffle just a bit, who knows what might happen?

The day that the basketball schools in the BE gathered together to keep Penn State out was the day that eventually doomed the Big E because the closed minded fools in Providence could not see what every one saw.

 

[Fishy]

The day that the basketball schools in the BE gathered together to keep Penn State out was the day that eventually doomed the Big E because the closed minded fools in Providence could not see what every one saw.

They had help from some football schools.

It seems Pitt has had a hand in every disastrous decision the conference ever made.

 

[WestCoastHusky]

They had help from some football schools.

It seems Pitt has had a hand in every disastrous decision the conference ever made.

Not only did Pitt voted to keep PSU out of the BE, their president was also the guy who was in charge of negotiating BE's last TV deal. BE turned ESPiN down with Pitt president as the ring leader. Had BE accepted that deal, BE would have been paid $13M to $14M per year per school.

Once BE pissed off ESPiN with threat of taking the TV contract to the open market, it was all over. ESPiN sent its favorite errand boy Swofford to break up the BE by taking SU and PITT in the middle of the night. Swofford is the slimiest commissioner and he knew exactly what he was doing. With uncertainty with the TV deal and the possibility of other BE schools defecting if they did not accept, SU and Pitt accepted ACC's deal in the middle of BE TV contract negotiation. In fact, they torpedoed the whole thing. I have little doubt had BE schools stayed together, they would have got a better deal than what ACC did in the open market. ESPiN worked with the ACC to destroy the BE so they can get media properties at a discount. It is a cut-throat business move for bunch of public universities. I am pretty confident ESPiN used its puppet the ACC to destroy the BE.

We will never know what would have happened had BE accepted that TV deal. With so much distrust between schools, it was easy for ESPiN's favorite errand boy to do its dirty work by played BE schools against each other.

In many ways, we are where we are today with Pitt played a huge role. If there is another school UCONN fans should hate more than BCU and the fruits, it should be SPITT.

 

[babysheep]

We don't call them scum for nothing

 

[UConn990411]

Not only did Pitt voted to keep PSU out of the BE, their president was also the guy who was in charge of negotiating BE's last TV deal. BE turned ESPiN down with Pitt president as the ring leader. Had BE accepted that deal, BE would have been paid $13M to $14M per year per school.

Actually, he was working a side deal with the ACC the entire time.

In a mountain of scum, the Pitt president is sitting at the very top. If karma is real, bad things will be coming Pitt's way.

 

[NickyNewark]

JMHO...Maryland's role in CR is playing out like it is because both their current president and athletic director came from B1G institutions. They had no idea about UMD's place in forming the ACC, or, how it would play going forward. Along with the Under Armour guy (a UMD grad), they made a plan to exit the league for the B1G.

They got what they wanted, much to the dismay of many alumni and supporters. Some of whom are still not onboard with the move. But, its a done deal, and, I wish them good luck going forward. They are going to need it.

All you say may be correct but I'm pretty sure the SC senator with the buggywhip did'nt realize the implications of his actions either back in the day?

 

[adbern7]

FSU is one of the TWO Florida Flagship schools...as officially designated by the state legislature.

Both Florida and FSU are the state flagship schools...despite your assumption.

On this Board, posters tend to take something that might matter some (cable subscribers, AAU status) and vastly inflate its importance in CR. "Flagship" is one of those things. [Please spare me all the links with Delaney citing Rutgers' "flagship" status...it's like talking about how a girl has a great sense of humor]. The term flagship is malleable and fuzzy depending on the state.
Traditionally, a state's flagship school meant the hardest public university in that state to get accepted to. This means UT-Austin and Michigan-Ann Arbor, but also UMass-Amherst and SUNY Binghamton. It also means UF, not FSU, is Florida's real flagship despite what the state's PC website has to say. There were exceptions. South Carolina is probably SC's "flagship", but Clemson is a significantly better academic school. Same for UGA and Georgia Tech. Further, all the states operate differently. Pitt is public but has a unique deal with the state of PA. Tons of other examples. UConn's status within CT has been gone over on this Board before. UConn and Bama are both "flagships", and CT has about 80% of the population with far more state income than AL, but UConn's politics would never allow to pay a head coach anything close to Saban's salary (which while bad for football fans is probably a smart move for society!), nor invest as many resources into athletics.
Point being don't go overboard on the flagship stuff, every situation is unique. Duke isn't a flagship but could walk into any conference tomorrow, including the B1G. Private schools like USC, Miami, and Notre Dame haven't had trouble competing in modern CFB.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

The argument against the importance of a flagship university seems to be, well Notre Dame, USC and Miami are good and UMass sucks, so therefore flagship status doesn't man anything.

Very solid.

 

[babysheep]

Yeah seriously I'm from Jersey and there's no question that RU is the public flagship. Good work not naming any other school that would challenge that spot. Roughly 1/10 of my graduating class went there, and it certainly is the toughest public to get in to with the best academics.

 

[adbern7]

Yeah seriously I'm from Jersey and there's no question that RU is the public flagship. Good work not naming any other school that would challenge that spot. Roughly 1/10 of my graduating class went there, and it certainly is the toughest public to get in to with the best academics.

re-read the post. the girl with the sense of humor is probably really funny. but it means something if that's the best thing you can say about her.

 

[upstater]

Not only did Pitt voted to keep PSU out of the BE, their president was also the guy who was in charge of negotiating BE's last TV deal. BE turned ESPiN down with Pitt president as the ring leader. Had BE accepted that deal, BE would have been paid $13M to $14M per year per school.

Once BE pissed off ESPiN with threat of taking the TV contract to the open market, it was all over. ESPiN sent its favorite errand boy Swofford to break up the BE by taking SU and PITT in the middle of the night. Swofford is the slimiest commissioner and he knew exactly what he was doing. With uncertainty with the TV deal and the possibility of other BE schools defecting if they did not accept, SU and Pitt accepted ACC's deal in the middle of BE TV contract negotiation. In fact, they torpedoed the whole thing. I have little doubt had BE schools stayed together, they would have got a better deal than what ACC did in the open market. ESPiN worked with the ACC to destroy the BE so they can get media properties at a discount. It is a cut-throat business move for bunch of public universities. I am pretty confident ESPiN used its puppet the ACC to destroy the BE.

We will never know what would have happened had BE accepted that TV deal. With so much distrust between schools, it was easy for ESPiN's favorite errand boy to do its dirty work by played BE schools against each other.

In many ways, we are where we are today with Pitt played a huge role. If there is another school UCONN fans should hate more than BCU and the fruits, it should be SPITT.

Of course, the commissioner wanted the TV deal, and if ESPN was pissed off, they rewarded the people who pissed them off and punished the people who favored ESPN.

 

[upstater]

On this Board, posters tend to take something that might matter some (cable subscribers, AAU status) and vastly inflate its importance in CR. "Flagship" is one of those things. [Please spare me all the links with Delaney citing Rutgers' "flagship" status...it's like talking about how a girl has a great sense of humor]. The term flagship is malleable and fuzzy depending on the state.
Traditionally, a state's flagship school meant the hardest public university in that state to get accepted to. This means UT-Austin and Michigan-Ann Arbor, but also UMass-Amherst and SUNY Binghamton. It also means UF, not FSU, is Florida's real flagship despite what the state's PC website has to say. There were exceptions. South Carolina is probably SC's "flagship", but Clemson is a significantly better academic school. Same for UGA and Georgia Tech. Further, all the states operate differently. Pitt is public but has a unique deal with the state of PA. Tons of other examples. UConn's status within CT has been gone over on this Board before. UConn and Bama are both "flagships", and CT has about 80% of the population with far more state income than AL, but UConn's politics would never allow to pay a head coach anything close to Saban's salary (which while bad for football fans is probably a smart move for society!), nor invest as many resources into athletics.
Point being don't go overboard on the flagship stuff, every situation is unique. Duke isn't a flagship but could walk into any conference tomorrow, including the B1G. Private schools like USC, Miami, and Notre Dame haven't had trouble competing in modern CFB.

I agree flagship is bogus. of course, Binghamton was never ahead of the other 2 SUNYs with AAU status is any sense that I can think of. The 3 were equal. AND, Clemson's academics are questionable at best. I'd rather be at South Carolina--any day. Cal-Berkeley claims it is the state's flagship but the Chancellor of the UC system has said that it is not the flagship. It is co-equal with the other Cals.

 

[billybud]

On this Board, posters tend to take something that might matter some (cable subscribers, AAU status) and vastly inflate its importance in CR. "Flagship" is one of those things. [Please spare me all the links with Delaney citing Rutgers' "flagship" status...it's like talking about how a girl has a great sense of humor]. The term flagship is malleable and fuzzy depending on the state.
Traditionally, a state's flagship school meant the hardest public university in that state to get accepted to. This means UT-Austin and Michigan-Ann Arbor, but also UMass-Amherst and SUNY Binghamton. It also means UF, not FSU, is Florida's real flagship despite what the state's PC website has to say. There were exceptions. South Carolina is probably SC's "flagship", but Clemson is a significantly better academic school. Same for UGA and Georgia Tech. Further, all the states operate differently. Pitt is public but has a unique deal with the state of PA. Tons of other examples. UConn's status within CT has been gone over on this Board before. UConn and Bama are both "flagships", and CT has about 80% of the population with far more state income than AL, but UConn's politics would never allow to pay a head coach anything close to Saban's salary (which while bad for football fans is probably a smart move for society!), nor invest as many resources into athletics.
Point being don't go overboard on the flagship stuff, every situation is unique. Duke isn't a flagship but could walk into any conference tomorrow, including the B1G. Private schools like USC, Miami, and Notre Dame haven't had trouble competing in modern CFB.

I wasn't the turkey trumpeting "flagship"....I find it less then meaningful when it comes to athletics.

 

[buggsy]

I agree flagship is bogus. of course, Binghamton was never ahead of the other 2 SUNYs with AAU status is any sense that I can think of. The 3 were equal. AND, Clemson's academics are questionable at best. I'd rather be at South Carolina--any day. Cal-Berkeley claims it is the state's flagship but the Chancellor of the UC system has said that it is not the flagship. It is co-equal with the other Cals.

We've had this argument before. What you said is BS. WHen it says right on Berkeley's own website that they are the flagship university....and when no other university in the university system questions them, then they are the flagship....and have been for decades before this chancellor was in office.

 

[adbern7]

We've had this argument before. What you said is BS. WHen it says right on Berkeley's own website that they are the flagship university....and when no other university in the university system questions them, then they are the flagship....and have been for decades before this chancellor was in office.

This is the whole point dude. Whatever the official designations or websites say have varying meaning. FSU might be "officially" a co-flagship with UF like another poster said, but ask anyone who lives in Florida where schools are in the pecking order and they'd say UF is #1-A and FSU is #1-B. Same for UT-Austin vs. TAMU (A&M also says it's a co-flagship).
The term is overrated. Texas, Alabama, and OSU are blue chip programs because they're blue chip programs. Not because they're "flagship".

 

[NickyNewark]

The day that the basketball schools in the BE gathered together to keep Penn State out was the day that eventually doomed the Big E because the closed minded fools in Providence could not see what every one saw.

That statement wraps up the BE's problem from that day on. The fact that the FB schools lacked the foresight meant the BE was built on "clay feet"!! You let in 1 move the easts flagship brand join the B1G giving them a foothold in the east and weakened ours having to seek loyalty from the likes of the "U" and VT. 1 PSU(even now with all the warts)=4 "U"s !!

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Oh my god, people are dense.

Please find one instance where anyone said Wyoming or New Mexico were superior to a Stanford or Virginia Tech solely based on their "flagship" status while the other school is private or the secondary school in the state.

Flagship is only meaningful in the sense that in UConn's case the state supports the school financially to a great extent academically and athletically, where as some other schools in states may have to share resources or as a private you can't draw from public money. In addition, as the flagship, you're likely who non alumni in the state support athletically as well.

That's it!

 

[upstater]

We've had this argument before. What you said is BS. WHen it says right on Berkeley's own website that they are the flagship university....and when no other university in the university system questions them, then they are the flagship....and have been for decades before this chancellor was in office.

The problem with you is your poor memory. I already said Berkeley says it on its own website. So what are you arguing? That no one disputes that? Here, the ex Chancellor Bergdahl even admits he was told not to use the term flagship to describe Berkeley by his bosses at U. California: http://chancellor.berkeley.edu/chancellors/berdahl/speeches/future-of-flagship-universities

I remember vividly being chastised by the Chancellor of the System of Higher Education in Oregon when, as Dean of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oregon, I referred in testimony in the legislature to the University of Oregon as the "flagship" campus. I had similar experiences at the University of Illinois, at Texas, and at Berkeley. (You might wonder why I haven't learned by this time!) Only in the safe company of alumni is one permitted to use the term.

There's a lot out there about UCLA's Chancellor in particular pressuring Berkeley to drop use of the term. Bergdahl does a good job of describing the terms importance and usefulness, and he makes clear that Calfironia has multiple flagships.

Bergdahl argues here that more than one school in a state should have the flagship designation because he sees such schools as being set apart from others as they are research intensive.

The term flagship first popped up in the 1950s with the GI Bill. It didn't exist before then. U. Calfornia reorganized in the 1960's with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Higher_Education. Under this plan, the university's revenues, tuition, budget, etc., was placed under the control of the President of the University of California system. Subsequently, the Berkeley Chancellors were told not to use the term flagship.

As usual buggsy, you're wrong.