U CONN and Big 10....

[btstimpy]

Nicky, the UVA Board of Visitors will never take their school to the SEC. I am 100 percent confident in that. Their fans would like it, but, their administration won't even consider it.

Not very many UVA fans I know want to join the SEC. There are some Virginia Tech fans that dream of that, but the level headed ones know that all the benefit of being able to play in BCS games and get the visibility that they do would evaporate into being like another Arkansas or Mississippi State in the SEC.

 

[btstimpy]

I wouldn't be so quick to write off the potential for the return of Big time football to.the tri-state area. History has a tendency to be repeatative.
It's true this is a competative area for entertainment.
The late George Steinbrenner understood this better than anyone.
When he bought the Yankees for 8million it was thought the only possible move was out of NY.
Their location was possibly the worse in the US.
by his death the team was worth about a billion dollars.

He understood the northeast is about entertainment value.
Hopefully Delany a Jersey boy learned something from George.
Will a vibrant Rutgers, UConn rivalry emulate the 40's battles between Notre Dame and Army ? When the millions of Veterans and. a strong Catholic sub-culture swelled that game into the hottest ticket in town. No but it will recreate a buzz especially if those teams are decent. The B1G is the only conference capable of nuturing this rebirth. The ACC lacks historical football attraction especially for Northerners.
Have people forgotten that the Northeast was a college BB wasteland post cheating scandal. The best coaches and players exited for backwater places like Chapel Hill NC were most of the locals didn't know a basketball was round.
These places actually accepted Jewish kids from the city as long as they could play.
Big time college football left the area in a simalar move when the Catholic schools gave it up and it became much too crass for the elites
Its a pretty simalar to NE BB in the late 50's to the 80's
People had written it off until the Big East came along..
The Big East was a show and a show is what the NE loves.
It took a visionary to see the potential for BB
It will take someone with equal vision to rediscover football.

You can dream for it to return. But the trend to the south and away from the northeast and the midwest for football is at the high school level. And it is growing more concentrated toward the Atlantic South (i.e. Florida and Georgia) with every passing year. To get the entertainment value, you have to have the players. The best coming out of high school are wanting to play closer to home in the south. That will translate to the college level. If Delaney can pull off a miracle against this trend, he will become a saint especially with a league that doesn't even play games in the south.

In the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s high school football talent was more balanced regionally. But you ask any specialist who follows college football recruiting today, and they will all tell you that the stars are in the South, in Texas, and in California. ESPN ran one of their Outside the Lines specials on it last year featuring Ron Zook who has recruited for Florida as well as for Illinois.

The Northeast does crave football. That's why the New England Patriots, New York Giants, Baltimore Ravens, and Philadelphia Eagles have each had really good runs since 2000. They have an easier time filling their rosters with players from the south than the colleges in the northeast are going to have. They pay them.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

Swofford didn't let Maryland go. They left of their own accord. They negotiated with the B1G while still members of the ACC, and, according to some of their fans, in clear violation of one or more of their own state's laws.

At least thats my own understanding of it.

I don't think Swofford intentionally let Maryland get away. He took his eye off the ball. He was too busy herding Pitt and Cuse into the ACC corral while admiring his reflection in the mirror. He simply didn't possess the intellectual bandwidth to plan a poorly conceived expansion into western PA and northern NY state, and ride herd on the existing conference members. He further proved his incompetence with that panicky addition of an ill-fitting Louisville. Were his hands tied by existing members? Maybe. Probably. But it's his job to lead, not simply wield a rubber stamp. If he can't do that, he needs to pack up his Peter Principle Hall of Fame plaque and head off to Hilton Head.

 

[btstimpy]

It will change but well into the future.
Rutgers is buying into the B1G in small increments over 7 years. It built out a stadium for $110m while hemoraging to the tune of $30m losses a year in the AD.

For Rutgers, the move is less about seeing red for the next 7 or 8 years than it is about the possibility of seeing a LOT more red as a member of the AAC for many more years.

But--if someone wants to make the argument that the move to the B1G is not going to bring the AD into the black, it is a viable argument. $30m is a lot to make up.

My point is that you have to have the Financial Discipline to get yourself in the black and live within your means. Both of these programs have a long history of deficit spending if you will. I'm more familiar with Maryland than Rutgers. I don't see Maryland changing its habits. They did cut 7 sports, but now they are talking about big $$ to try to get facilities like Michigan and Ohio State. The place is broke, and Kevin Anderson is talking about an $80 million indoor practice facility. Virginia just built a very nice one for less than half that.

 

[btstimpy]

I don't think Swofford intentionally let Maryland get away. He took his eye off the ball. He was too busy herding Pitt and Cuse into the ACC corral while admiring his reflection in the mirror. He simply didn't possess the intellectual bandwidth to plan a poorly conceived expansion into western PA and northern NY state, and ride herd on the existing conference members. He further proved his incompetence with that panicky addition of an ill-fitting Louisville. Were his hands tied by existing members? Maybe. Probably. But it's his job to lead, not simply wield a rubber stamp. If he can't do that, he needs to pack up his Peter Principle Hall of Fame plaque and head off to Hilton Head.

The ACC put an expansion committee in place in 2010 made up of 4 Presidents, 4 ADs, and 4 faculty representatives. It carefully reviewed all the expansion targets that the ACC would be interested in, which schools were inquiring about membership, and laid out all the targets for the conference in order. Maryland was part of this. All of the moves have been carefully debated and agreed upon by all the schools well ahead of any moves. That committee selected Syracuse, Pittsburg, Notre Dame, and Louisville. The reason that Louisville was able to be decided upon so quickly is because it was decided upon a year earlier and not by Swofford. It was decided upon by the committee. There are other targets already decided upon too. Many speculate those to have been UConn and Cincinnati in 2012. The committee still meets, and they could possibly adjust that giving changing landscape. It is now a 5x5x5 committee instead of 4x4x4. Maryland is no longer on the committee.

You are correct that the Maryland departure surprised Swofford. It surprised everyone including most of the people at Maryland because it was done by Wallace Loh in secret, and then he rushed it through the Board without debate or even documented terms and conditions. That stuff is trickling out afterwards like the 7 years to buy in to full revenue, the special travel compensation from the Big Ten, etc.

 

[B1GALUM]

The behavior at Maryland hasn't changed. They're now already talking about an overpriced $80 million indoor practice facility because they have to have the same facilities as Ohio State or Michigan, or at least that's Kevin Anderson's talking point. They are in the financial mess they are in because of overspending and running a bigger athletic department than they have budget for. They have done it for 3 decades now. The extra revenue that they think they are going to get from the Big Ten will just encourage more of the same.

Rutgers has done similar and covered it with funds from the academic part of the university. The Big Ten money will help some, but its the habit that would have to change (i.e. from overspending to living within athletically earned revenue numbers only or at least close to them). Do you see evidence of that?

No. I do not have any evidence. It may very well be that in this case past performance is indicative of future results. However, as I previously stated, Delany and the B1G are keenly aware of the state of these athletic departments. I find it difficult to believe that Delany, being cognizant of this and how these additions may affect his legacy, is not going to attempt to change this behavior and outcome. You think there is absolutely no chance that with time these athletic departments will succeed?

 

[justinslot]

You are correct that the Maryland departure surprised Swofford. It surprised everyone including most of the people at Maryland because it was done by Wallace Loh in secret, and then he rushed it through the Board without debate or even documented terms and conditions. That stuff is trickling out afterwards like the 7 years to buy in to full revenue, the special travel compensation from the Big Ten, etc.

So Swofford got Swofforded and he was surprised?

 

[buggsy]

It will change but well into the future.
Rutgers is buying into the B1G in small increments over 7 years. It built out a stadium for $110m while hemoraging to the tune of $30m losses a year in the AD.

For Rutgers, the move is less about seeing red for the next 7 or 8 years than it is about the possibility of seeing a LOT more red as a member of the AAC for many more years.

But--if someone wants to make the argument that the move to the B1G is not going to bring the AD into the black, it is a viable argument. $30m is a lot to make up.

That 30 million a dollar a year deficit you mention (it's actually 27.7 mm) will be in the positive by 2017 or 2018.

By 2019 when we are fully vested members, we will be in the several millions on the positive side..from just TV and IMG money alone...not to mention the increase in season tickets and the profits from increased seating licenses for season tickets, and increased parking, concessions and Big Ten merchandising revenues.

From our new IMG deal, we just increased our rights deal from 3 million a year to at least 6 million a year, possibly as much as 8-10 million a year depending on profit sharing.

Between the playoff system payout (51 mm a year for the Big Ten) and the Rose Bowl payout (40 mm annually), that's 91 mm a year alone, divided by 15 (14 schools plus a share for the league office) and you're looking at 6 million a year per school right there, as profits are split.

By year 5 (it's a five year buy in, not 7 year) we will be making approximately 35 million a year more than we are making now, in just TV money alone. This does not take into account money from the league's shared playoff system payout and newly signed 40 million annual Rose Bowl TV contract.

Don't worry about where our money is going to come from.

Worry about where your money is going to come from in 5 years, when under their new TV deal, the Big Ten is handing out 46 million a year to each of its 14 members (40 mm TV plus 6 mm in playoff/Rose Bowl money) while the American Conference will be lucky to be handing out 4 million year.

 

[upstater]

That 30 million a dollar a year deficit you mention (it's actually 27.7 mm) will be in the positive by 2017 or 2018.

By 2019 when we are fully vested members, we will be in the several millions on the positive side..from just TV and IMG money alone...not to mention the increase in season tickets and the profits from increased seating licenses for season tickets, and increased parking, concessions and Big Ten merchandising revenues.

From our new IMG deal, we just increased our rights deal from 3 million a year to at least 6 million a year, possibly as much as 8-10 million a year depending on profit sharing.

Between the playoff system payout (51 mm a year for the Big Ten) and the Rose Bowl payout (40 mm annually), that's 91 mm a year alone, divided by 15 (14 schools plus a share for the league office) and you're looking at 6 million a year per school right there, as profits are split.

By year 5 (it's a five year buy in, not 7 year) we will be making approximately 35 million a year more than we are making now, in just TV money alone. This does not take into account money from the league's shared playoff system payout and newly signed 40 million annual Rose Bowl TV contract.

Don't worry about where our money is going to come from.

Worry about where your money is going to come from in 5 years, when under their new TV deal, the Big Ten is handing out 46 million a year to each of its 14 members (40 mm TV plus 6 mm in playoff/Rose Bowl money) while the American Conference will be lucky to be handing out 4 million year.

I would say this is a pretty embarrassing post but then look who wrote it! Par for the course. You are one of the worst readers in the history of message boards. And that's saying something. Your response to my post explaining why the B1G is a much better thing for RU than the alternative, you proceeded to blather on in irrelevance.

 

[RegisteredUconn]

The ACC put an expansion committee in place in 2010 made up of 4 Presidents, 4 ADs, and 4 faculty representatives. It carefully reviewed all the expansion targets that the ACC would be interested in, which schools were inquiring about membership, and laid out all the targets for the conference in order. Maryland was part of this. All of the moves have been carefully debated and agreed upon by all the schools well ahead of any moves. That committee selected Syracuse, Pittsburg, Notre Dame, and Louisville. The reason that Louisville was able to be decided upon so quickly is because it was decided upon a year earlier and not by Swofford. It was decided upon by the committee. There are other targets already decided upon too. Many speculate those to have been UConn and Cincinnati in 2012. The committee still meets, and they could possibly adjust that giving changing landscape. It is now a 5x5x5 committee instead of 4x4x4. Maryland is no longer on the committee.

You are correct that the Maryland departure surprised Swofford. It surprised everyone including most of the people at Maryland because it was done by Wallace Loh in secret, and then he rushed it through the Board without debate or even documented terms and conditions. That stuff is trickling out afterwards like the 7 years to buy in to full revenue, the special travel compensation from the Big Ten, etc.

Stimpy, I think you and I agree on far more than we disagree. Still, you leave things unaddressed that I think are crucial. OK, there is a committee who's purpose is to keep up with conference re-alignment including succession planning. Good, but to what end? In other words, what is the ACC's vision? Cause a cursory perusal of its moves don't seem to indicate much of a direction of any kind. What is the ACC trying to achieve? Simple survival? If so, that would explain a lot.

Your statement that the additions of Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville were the decision of the committee and not Swofford is particularly troubling. Presidents and faculty shouldn't play a major role in what the athletic department does. Should they have veto authority over poorly thought out and presented plans. Absolutely. The history department can offer advice to the mathematics department but they shouldn't set the curriculum. Either Swofford endorsed those last three additions, which to me indicates a lack of vision, or he is a strategically challenged leader. Better you had a guy at the helm like Wallace Loh who exercised leadership. There were checks on his ability to act but he convinced others of the correctness of his position. Is Maryland in a better place? I think so. You may disagree. We shall find out. But they wouldn't be where the are if Loh hadn't acted.

The ACC sat in the perfect place to dominate the Atlantic coast. They would have had to contend with the SEC for the southern portion but the north was nearly virgin territory, open for the taking. They made a start with BC but then failed to follow up with UConn and Rutgers. I would have loved that conference. True, they would have needed some executional excellence to develop it but the ACC would have had a population footprint of close to 100 million. To me, that's what Swofford pissed away. Instead of a geographically unified, robust conference positioned to take on the SEC and B1G directly, his legacy will be a forever bifurcated entity destined to squabble over scraps.

 

[btstimpy]

Stimpy, I think you and I agree on far more than we disagree. Still, you leave things unaddressed that I think are crucial. OK, there is a committee who's purpose is to keep up with conference re-alignment including succession planning. Good, but to what end? In other words, what is the ACC's vision? Cause a cursory perusal of its moves don't seem to indicate much of a direction of any kind. What is the ACC trying to achieve? Simple survival? If so, that would explain a lot.

Your statement that the additions of Syracuse, Pitt, and Louisville were the decision of the committee and not Swofford is particularly troubling. Presidents and faculty shouldn't play a major role in what the athletic department does. Should they have veto authority over poorly thought out and presented plans. Absolutely. The history department can offer advice to the mathematics department but they shouldn't set the curriculum. Either Swofford endorsed those last three additions, which to me indicates a lack of vision, or he is a strategically challenged leader. Better you had a guy at the helm like Wallace Loh who exercised leadership. There were checks on his ability to act but he convinced others of the correctness of his position. Is Maryland in a better place? I think so. You may disagree. We shall find out. But they wouldn't be where the are if Loh hadn't acted.

The ACC sat in the perfect place to dominate the Atlantic coast. They would have had to contend with the SEC for the southern portion but the north was nearly virgin territory, open for the taking. They made a start with BC but then failed to follow up with UConn and Rutgers. I would have loved that conference. True, they would have needed some executional excellence to develop it but the ACC would have had a population footprint of close to 100 million. To me, that's what Swofford pissed away. Instead of a geographically unified, robust conference positioned to take on the SEC and B1G directly, his legacy will be a forever bifurcated entity destined to squabble over scraps.

I don't believe Rutgers and Maryland would help the ACC take on the Big Ten or SEC if the ACC had them. Notre Dame helps the ACC take on the Big Ten. Penn State would help the ACC take on the Big Ten, and part of the Big Ten's reactive move to add Rutgers and Maryland was to help keep Penn State who isn't all that happy. Penn State wants to have stadiums in the east that their fans can take over and dominate like the old days. Rutgers and Maryland give them back some of that. And now they will be dragging Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State along for the ride. After living with that for a decade we can revisit if Maryland is in a better place. Rutgers didn't really have a choice, but Maryland did.

The Biggest thing that will help the ACC take on the Big Ten in football is demographics and time. The ACC is not going to take on the SEC top to bottom in football, but it will have members that can. The ACC already can take on the Big Ten and the SEC in basketball. UConn would make that even stronger. I'm an advocate for that.

 

[pj]

I don't believe Rutgers and Maryland would help the ACC take on the Big Ten or SEC if the ACC had them. Notre Dame helps the ACC take on the Big Ten. Penn State would help the ACC take on the Big Ten, and part of the Big Ten's reactive move to add Rutgers and Maryland was to help keep Penn State who isn't all that happy. Penn State wants to have stadiums in the east that their fans can take over and dominate like the old days. Rutgers and Maryland give them back some of that. And now they will be dragging Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State along for the ride. After living with that for a decade we can revisit if Maryland is in a better place. Rutgers didn't really have a choice, but Maryland did.

The Biggest thing that will help the ACC take on the Big Ten in football is demographics and time. The ACC is not going to take on the SEC top to bottom in football, but it will have members that can. The ACC already can take on the Big Ten and the SEC in basketball. UConn would make that even stronger. I'm an advocate for that.

The ACC's interest wasn't so much in "taking on the Big Ten or SEC" but in dominating its own geographic territory. It would have been better off taking UConn and Rutgers and dominating the eastern seaboard. From North Carolina to New England, there would have been no competition from B1G or SEC, and no attractive schools allowing them entry (assuming the ACC was solid).

Instead, the ACC has gotten a partial share of one national brand (Notre Dame) and a number of weak programs in B1G (Syracuse, Pitt) or SEC (Louisville) territory, while giving the B1G the dominant position in the mid-Atlantic and a free shot at New England should it pick up UConn.

The ACC would have had Notre Dame on exactly the same deal with UConn and Rutgers and Pitt. That would have worked much better.

 

[CL82]

The Big Ten gained two financially troubled Athletic Departments. That's not going to change. The ACC replaced one of them with a thriving athletic department.

Maryland and RU are like two blue collar families who move out the Northeast to a lower tax area and thrive. Louisville is like the neighbor who over reaches when he buys into a that NE neighborhood and burns up credit trying to keep up. For a while, he looks okay, if a bit flashy, until the bank is putting up the property for sheriff's sale. I hope that Louisville does well with the influx of ACC money, but their 'financial strength' is based upon very thinly disguised creative accounting. I don't see them as having a stronger athletic department than either Rutgers or Maryland.

 

[btstimpy]

The ACC's interest wasn't so much in "taking on the Big Ten or SEC" but in dominating its own geographic territory. It would have been better off taking UConn and Rutgers and dominating the eastern seaboard. From North Carolina to New England, there would have been no competition from B1G or SEC, and no attractive schools allowing them entry (assuming the ACC was solid).

Instead, the ACC has gotten a partial share of one national brand (Notre Dame) and a number of weak programs in B1G (Syracuse, Pitt) or SEC (Louisville) territory, while giving the B1G the dominant position in the mid-Atlantic and a free shot at New England should it pick up UConn.

The ACC would have had Notre Dame on exactly the same deal with UConn and Rutgers and Pitt. That would have worked much better.

Weak programs is what the B1G got and nothing more. With a lot of hard work they potentially can change that, but 30 years of history doesn't support it in either case. Financially in the case of Maryland. Maryland has occasionally been good in basketball, about as often as Illinois.

I don't consider Louisville a weak program. They just won the NCAA national basketball championship which was not their first and dominated Florida in the Sugar Bowl. Syracuse is a dominant basketball brand and was added for that. Every ACC Marketing event introducing Syracuse and Pitt has Jim Boeheim sitting there and not Shaeffer, and New York is not Big Ten territory. Pitt is there as a football brand and Pennsylvania presence. It is an overlap with the Big Ten, but ABC sports is showing a lot of ACC 3:30 games on ABC this season while showing the Big Ten on ESPN2 in all of Pennsylvania. That's a good sign for the ACC.

And with Notre Dame, what the Big Ten got was confirmation that they can take Notre Dame off the Big Ten's list going forward.

 

[btstimpy]

Maryland and RU are like two blue collar families who move out the Northeast to a lower tax area and thrive. Louisville is like the neighbor who over reaches when he buys into a that NE neighborhood and burns up credit trying to keep up. For a while, he looks okay, if a bit flashy, and until the bank is putting up the property for sheriff's sale. I hope that Louisville does well with the influx of ACC money, but their 'financial strength' is based upon very thinly disguised creative accounting. I don't see them as having a stronger athletic department than either Rutgers or Maryland.

You are welcome to perceive it that way. But I just watched Maryland flush 7 sports because it is broke. And I don't recall ever seeing Rutgers win anything of consequence. Yes they partipate in a lot of sports. You just don't see them come tournament time in any of them. Maybe women's basketball occasionally.

Louisville is winning NCAA championships and adding sports with an athletic budget bigger than most in the ACC , Big Ten, or SEC. That's before ACC money. If you're predicting that this is by creative accounting and an oncoming train wreck is on the way, you can. But I'm not seeing it.

 

[btstimpy]

No. I do not have any evidence. It may very well be that in this case past performance is indicative of future results. However, as I previously stated, Delany and the B1G are keenly aware of the state of these athletic departments. I find it difficult to believe that Delany, being cognizant of this and how these additions may affect his legacy, is not going to attempt to change this behavior and outcome. You think there is absolutely no chance that with time these athletic departments will succeed?

You would have to define success. To Jim Delaney and the BTN, they believe that due to contracts with Comcast and Time Warner that they can squeeze a lot more money out of the subscribers in Maryland and New Jersey by having Maryland and Rutgers content. If they get that, Jim Delaney would not care what the Rutgers or Maryland athletic departments do or don't do. The second thing Jim Delaney wants is to be able to market the Big Ten Brand in New York and Washington/Baltimore to help with 2017 Tier 1 contract negotiations. Will Rutgers and Maryland help him do that any more than Penn State was already doing for him, maybe but not massively. The third thing Jim Delaney wanted to do was appease Penn State's desire to have some local eastern stadiums that the Penn State fans can take over in football and dominate. This he accomplished. And finally, he had to find schools that met the AAU requirement academically to get the buy in he needed from the Big Ten Presidents, and he was able to do that in Maryland and Rutgers.

Do I think the Maryland and Rutgers athletic departments are going to all of a sudden transform from decades of financial mismanagement behavior into profitable enterprises because they are in the Big Ten? No. Could there be a chance? possibly, but a really small one. I don't think it matters to Jim Delaney. No. What matters to him are the four things listed in the first paragraph.

 

[B1GALUM]

You would have to define success. To Jim Delaney and the BTN, they believe that due to contracts with Comcast and Time Warner that they can squeeze a lot more money out of the subscribers in Maryland and New Jersey by having Maryland and Rutgers content. If they get that, Jim Delaney would not care what the Rutgers or Maryland athletic departments do or don't do. The second thing Jim Delaney wants is to be able to market the Big Ten Brand in New York and Washington/Baltimore to help with 2017 Tier 1 contract negotiations. Will Rutgers and Maryland help him do that any more than Penn State was already doing for him, maybe but not massively. The third thing Jim Delaney wanted to do was appease Penn State's desire to have some local eastern stadiums that the Penn State fans can take over in football and dominate. This he accomplished. And finally, he had to find schools that met the AAU requirement academically to get the buy in he needed from the Big Ten Presidents, and he was able to do that in Maryland and Rutgers.

Do I think the Maryland and Rutgers athletic departments are going to all of a sudden transform from decades of financial mismanagement behavior into profitable enterprises because they are in the Big Ten? No. Could there be a chance? possibly, but a really small one. I don't think it matters to Jim Delaney. No. What matters to him are the four things listed in the first paragraph.

It looks like Jim Delany and Maryland AD Kevin Anderson will be discussing the move of Maryland to the B1G in a public forum.
I hope that there will not only be more insight provided into this specific move but that a more broad discussion about B1G expansion will be incorporated into the session.
FYI ...

http://www.merrill.umd.edu/deadline/index.php/2013/10/29/povich_big10/
Povich Center Symposium Looks at Maryland’s Move to the Big Ten
COLLEGE PARK, Md. – Jim Delany, Commissioner of the Big Ten Conference, and Kevin Anderson, Director of Athletics for the University of Maryland headline the eighth annual Shirley Povich Symposium on Nov. 5. “Maryland to the Big Ten: Charting the Future, Remembering the Past” starts at 7 p.m. in the Adele H. Stamp Student Union on the University of Maryland campus. Admission is free.
Joining Delany and Anderson are Bonnie Bernstein ’92, Vice President of Content and Brand Development for “Campus Insiders,” Tom McMillen ’74, Chairman and CEO of Timios National Corporation and former University of Maryland and NBA basketball player and Scott Van Pelt, commentator and reporter at ESPN on television and radio.
Television host Maury Povich, son of the late Washington Post columnist Shirley Povich for whom the symposium is named, will moderate.
University President Wallace Loh announced that UMD would be moving to the Big Ten Conference in November 2012. It’s been a major subject of discussion ever since.
“Maryland moving to the Big Ten in 2014 is a huge story that impacts every aspect of the university and will dominate the course of Maryland athletics in the future,” said George Solomon, Director of the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism.
“Having Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and University of Maryland Athletic Director Kevin Anderson discussing the move, with Povich Symposium moderator Maury Povich and panelists Tom McMillen, Bonnie Bernstein and Scott Van Pelt, should generate a vibrant discussion that will interest the university and entire community.”
The event is free and open to the public.

 

[NickyNewark]

Not very many UVA fans I know want to join the SEC. There are some Virginia Tech fans that dream of that, but the level headed ones know that all the benefit of being able to play in BCS games and get the visibility that they do would evaporate into being like another Arkansas or Mississippi State in the SEC.

I would'nt put UVa on the same level as Ark or even MSU? Maybe Ky or Vandy but even thats probably inaccurate given the recent poor displays esp over the last 5 years or so in bowls by ACC FB with last year being an exception?If Va played in the SEC they'd be at the absolute bottom!!Va and BC or Cuse would be a better comparison for where the level of of Va FB is today but Cuse trumps Va in spades in hoops!So I guess BC who like Va is at least starting to recruit is the closest comparison. You guys as the state school should run circles around VT in popularity in Delmarva but can't even do it in Va !?!How did those guys pass you guys up? Their popularity was exploding while they were in the BE and taking them into the ACC they blew right by you'all. I think there fanbase extends into Md/DC? Before VT you guys were Va's school ... and now? your not viewed that way.

 

[btstimpy]

It looks like Jim Delany and Maryland AD Kevin Anderson will be discussing the move of Maryland to the B1G in a public forum.
I hope that there will not only be more insight provided into this specific move but that a more broad discussion about B1G expansion will be incorporated into the session.
FYI ...

http://www.merrill.umd.edu/deadline/index.php/2013/10/29/povich_big10/
Povich Center Symposium Looks at Maryland’s Move to the Big Ten
COLLEGE PARK, Md. – Jim Delany, Commissioner of the Big Ten Conference, and Kevin Anderson, Director of Athletics for the University of Maryland headline the eighth annual Shirley Povich Symposium on Nov. 5. “Maryland to the Big Ten: Charting the Future, Remembering the Past” starts at 7 p.m. in the Adele H. Stamp Student Union on the University of Maryland campus. Admission is free.
Joining Delany and Anderson are Bonnie Bernstein ’92, Vice President of Content and Brand Development for “Campus Insiders,” Tom McMillen ’74, Chairman and CEO of Timios National Corporation and former University of Maryland and NBA basketball player and Scott Van Pelt, commentator and reporter at ESPN on television and radio.
Television host Maury Povich, son of the late Washington Post columnist Shirley Povich for whom the symposium is named, will moderate.
University President Wallace Loh announced that UMD would be moving to the Big Ten Conference in November 2012. It’s been a major subject of discussion ever since.
“Maryland moving to the Big Ten in 2014 is a huge story that impacts every aspect of the university and will dominate the course of Maryland athletics in the future,” said George Solomon, Director of the Shirley Povich Center for Sports Journalism.
“Having Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany and University of Maryland Athletic Director Kevin Anderson discussing the move, with Povich Symposium moderator Maury Povich and panelists Tom McMillen, Bonnie Bernstein and Scott Van Pelt, should generate a vibrant discussion that will interest the university and entire community.”
The event is free and open to the public.

I had not seen that. Should be an interesting discussion. Hopefully it gets good participation.

 

[NickyNewark]

You would have to define success. To Jim Delaney and the BTN, they believe that due to contracts with Comcast and Time Warner that they can squeeze a lot more money out of the subscribers in Maryland and New Jersey by having Maryland and Rutgers content. If they get that, Jim Delaney would not care what the Rutgers or Maryland athletic departments do or don't do. The second thing Jim Delaney wants is to be able to market the Big Ten Brand in New York and Washington/Baltimore to help with 2017 Tier 1 contract negotiations. Will Rutgers and Maryland help him do that any more than Penn State was already doing for him, maybe but not massively. The third thing Jim Delaney wanted to do was appease Penn State's desire to have some local eastern stadiums that the Penn State fans can take over in football and dominate. This he accomplished. And finally, he had to find schools that met the AAU requirement academically to get the buy in he needed from the Big Ten Presidents, and he was able to do that in Maryland and Rutgers.

Do I think the Maryland and Rutgers athletic departments are going to all of a sudden transform from decades of financial mismanagement behavior into profitable enterprises because they are in the Big Ten? No. Could there be a chance? possibly, but a really small one. I don't think it matters to Jim Delaney. No. What matters to him are the four things listed in the first paragraph.

RU's athletic departments had been trying since "79" till "01" to go bigtime on the cheap not overspending and just started properly funding the AD since Mulcahy/Schiano so I don't understand this myth that traditionally RU has been spending/throwing money foolishly and mismanaging funds for a long period of time?After 25 years of not spending what they should have been while our economy was still robust they tried playing catch up at a bad time!RU is reknown as conservative with tried and true values all over the world with more Fortune500 CEO's than any other school !

 

[btstimpy]

I would'nt put UVa on the same level as Ark or even MSU? Maybe Ky or Vandy but even thats probably inaccurate given the recent poor displays esp over the last 5 years or so in bowls by ACC FB with last year being an exception?If Va played in the SEC they'd be at the absolute bottom!!Va and BC or Cuse would be a better comparison for where the level of of Va FB is today but Cuse trumps Va in spades in hoops!So I guess BC who like Va is at least starting to recruit is the closest comparison. You guys as the state school should run circles around VT in popularity in Delmarva but can't even do it in Va !?!How did those guys pass you guys up? Their popularity was exploding while they were in the BE and taking them into the ACC they blew right by you'all. I think there fanbase extends into Md/DC? Before VT you guys were Va's school ... and now? your not viewed that way.

UVA continues to do quite well at keeping it's acceptance rate quite low and number of applications growing every year. That shows quite good popularity to me. That's the popularity contenst it's most concerned with. Virginia Tech is a larger school than Virginia, so it's always going to have more alumni and most of them are personally involved with the fortunes of the VT football team. You won't see them much after January. They did finally make the ACC baseball tournament and NCAA baseball tournament last year for the first time in a long time, and it was interesting to see Hokies pop out of hiding in June to all of a sudden fine a new found importance to NCAA baseball. They got bounced in the regional, so Oh well!

Virginia has room for improvement in football without question. Mike London is recruiting very well, but not really coaching the games very well. I'm not sure he'll last much longer than one more year. Virginia has room for improvement in basketball, and we're seeing some. Will it be enough to compete in this ACC men's basketball lineup. That will be tough, but we'll see. You won't see a whole lot of Hokies sporting their gear in the winter as much.

 

[NickyNewark]

I don't believe Rutgers and Maryland would help the ACC take on the Big Ten or SEC if the ACC had them. Notre Dame helps the ACC take on the Big Ten. Penn State would help the ACC take on the Big Ten, and part of the Big Ten's reactive move to add Rutgers and Maryland was to help keep Penn State who isn't all that happy. Penn State wants to have stadiums in the east that their fans can take over and dominate like the old days. Rutgers and Maryland give them back some of that. And now they will be dragging Ohio State, Michigan, and Michigan State along for the ride. After living with that for a decade we can revisit if Maryland is in a better place. Rutgers didn't really have a choice, but Maryland did.

The Biggest thing that will help the ACC take on the Big Ten in football is demographics and time. The ACC is not going to take on the SEC top to bottom in football, but it will have members that can. The ACC already can take on the Big Ten and the SEC in basketball. UConn would make that even stronger. I'm an advocate for that.

"UConn would only make that stronger" ..bStimpy,you always could lay the butter on thickly Ha Ha..

 

[AZHuskiePop]

You can dream for it to return. But the trend to the south and away from the northeast and the midwest for football is at the high school level. And it is growing more concentrated toward the Atlantic South (i.e. Florida and Georgia) with every passing year. To get the entertainment value, you have to have the players. The best coming out of high school are wanting to play closer to home in the south. That will translate to the college level. If Delaney can pull off a miracle against this trend, he will become a saint especially with a league that doesn't even play games in the south.

In the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s high school football talent was more balanced regionally. But you ask any specialist who follows college football recruiting today, and they will all tell you that the stars are in the South, in Texas, and in California. ESPN ran one of their Outside the Lines specials on it last year featuring Ron Zook who has recruited for Florida as well as for Illinois.

The Northeast does crave football. That's why the New England Patriots, New York Giants, Baltimore Ravens, and Philadelphia Eagles have each had really good runs since 2000. They have an easier time filling their rosters with players from the south than the colleges in the northeast are going to have. They pay them.

While I guess your out as the visionary I'm looking for.
PS based on your assumption the ACC shouldn't have embraced BB
Aren't you glad you weren't in charge back then.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Does this thread have anything to do with UConn?

 

[uconnbill]

If we are to pretend that GOR's don't exist, and Texahoma can somehow leave the Big 12, they are heading West, not North. But they do exist, and Texas is getting paid to stay where they are, so they aren't going anywhere. I do think the Big 12 will add 2 schools to both get to 12 and save WVU from falling apart completely as an athletic program. Those schools will most likely be Cincinnati and BYU.

Which brings us back to how does UConn get saved? 95% chance that it doesn't, but if it does, it will be because the Big 10 added Missouri and UConn.

I am not sure what the SEC would do if that happened. They could very realistically just stay at 13, or grab Cincinnati if they weren't already in a league by that point. I think UCF or Houston is much, much less likely, but possible as "junior" members just to get to 14.

Shouldn't you be stealing children's candy or something. If you never have anything good to say, why say anything at all. Don't tell me that your realistic