(06-09-2012 11:58 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 10:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Why are people so stupified by the B1G? Stop thinking there is a Mold that each move has to fit into.

Penn State was a no brainer addition back when Penn State was shopping around. For Nebraska's add you have to look at the PAC. I see NO ONE making this connection. The PAC and B1G are tied together at the hip. The PAC was already in expansion, they were moving up and going to have a conference championship. The B1G needed a team to reach 12 so that it too could have a conference championship.

This is the most sensible point you have made. If its about brands more than numbers why not remain at 12, play a 9 game schedule (5 division, 4 cross division) for near round robin B1G competition maximizing the games against Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State for everyone else involved?

The B1G is pretty conservative. They've only added 3 schools over the past 60 years (Michigan State, Nebraska, Penn State). That is slow moving.

Ahhh I was hoping someone might take that angle. Now...since this was a move to pair up with the PAC we can then assume that the PAC and B1G are always in communication about possible future moves and intentions.

Don't you think the PAC and B1G were in discussions when it looked like the PAC was going to go to 16 with Texas and company? Hell even ESPN was talking about possible pods for the PAC. So if the PAC and B1G work on plans to mimic each other, it would be feasible to say that it was very likely that the B1G was looking at plans of it's own on how it could get to 16 as well right?

So that means this has been an idea tossed around between higher ups in the B1G conference for awhile. It is not such an out there idea that B1G Presidents would be thinking sixteen and what Pods or four divisions could do for the B1G.

So when I start looking around at potential moves I look for a four team grouping that could fit into a pod much like how the Texoma-4 would have fit for the PAC. That is not to say that if the Texoma-4 would have gone that UMD/UVA/UNC/Duke would have been in the B1G. It would have been a different foursome for the Big Ten.

The mentality is likely there still though for the Big Ten and if moves made by other major conference lead to the above foursome being open to the Big Ten then I think the Big Ten takes a serious look at the possibilities and how much money it would bring in. The Coaches would love it, strong new recruiting grounds without any major programs coming in. That is a goldmine for our existing football programs.

Now, we already have a scheduling contract with the PAC so if we go to 16 we will still have it. It just means that four teams would be allowed to know in advance what years they wouldn't have a scheduled game against the PAC and thus schedule another OOC game on their own. It isn't that big of a deal.

If those four fall in our lap I highly doubt our UNC graduate Commissioner doesn't take a good hard look. As far as the culture goes, Penn State didn't fit the culture when it joined and Nebraska is the same. They paired up Nebraska with Iowa right away to form a new thanksgiving rivalry in order to try and bring them into the fold as quickly as possible.

If we did get those four we would likely move to some type of pod structure until new rules could be achieved from the NCAA. With that type of major restructuring it makes any cultural differences minimized as the new arrivals would have their own pod/division.

So, due to the PAC/B1G relationship the Big Ten has already been introduced to the feasibility of 16 and what that could possibly bring to the conference. Obviously the consortium thinks there is substantial potential there, otherwise the PAC wouldn't have looked at the Texoma-4 at all.

(06-10-2012 12:46 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 10:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Expect any future moves to be made with markets in mind more so than brands. That makes Institutions like Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and even Duke very attractive if you see things in a money motivated perspective. Notre Dame is a downtrending product with a down trend in popularity. The Big Ten invests in the future. Notre Dame is not a good future investment for the Big Ten.

Notre Dame is worth getting, but they're not interested and will continue to be uninterested.

UNC and Duke are attractive because getting hoops brands that big would mean $$$ for the conference network. For any conference with a network. (Kansas would be a nice prize for any conference with its own network for the same reason, if they were free to move without K-State.)

Assuming that the B1G holds as much inventory back for its network, in its next TV deal, as the Pac did in its TV deal, then maybe half of each member's basketball games could be on the conference network. If the league is trying to get your conference network onto more cable systems and/or trying to charge higher monthly fees to the cable/satellite operators, then having 15 Duke games and 15 UNC games on the network every year will give the conference more leverage. It's a nice complement to having 3 football games from each of the conference's marquee football names on the network.

Another potential play for leveraging the value of the conference networks is "bundling" the B1G and Pac networks together for cable/satellite operators, which could get each conference network onto "basic" cable/satellite tiers in the other conference's footprint.

We will have to agree to disagree about Notre Dame. Perhaps you guys can score them then in the future and get an eastern grouping for the PAC.

Yeah, because our move is based on the Big Ten Network first and foremost, having Duke and North Carolina basketball on it is huge. Getting the BTN at high rates in North Carolina is huge. Getting BTN at high rates in Virginia and Maryland is huge as well.

Would love to see some more cooperation between the Big Ten and PAC as you suggest.

(06-10-2012 02:00 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Nebraska in the long run is gonna be a mistake for the B-10.
Between NY, NJ, Va & NC is 50 million people, that alot of cable TV.

It was the best move available at the time and as an Iowa fan I am quite happy we made that particular move.

(06-10-2012 02:43 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Nebraska though is the "home sports team" for South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska. Plus it's popular in surrounding states (Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma). That's a lot of people. I don't know if Nebraska can return to its 70-90s state...but they'll always be a CFB name.

As a UNC fan living in PA, I would pay more for BTN if UNC was going to be on BTN three times as much as ESPN. I might even watch a UNC football Thursday night home game against Minnesota or Wisconsin if it were on the BTN.

That said, I don't see the Big Ten adding four ACC schools. It changes the league dynamic far too much. ND plus 3 ACC schools? I could see it. Rutgers plus 3 ACC schools? Less likely but maybe.

(The next shoe that drops might be watching what the ACC does if it loses Clemson/FSU. Do they grab Rutgers/UConn immediately? If Rutgers floats a bit, I'd guess they are waiting for a verbal Big Ten offer to become written.)

I'm sorry but the whole idea of expansion with these particular schools from the ACC is that they become more comfortable with the idea of this move because they will be with three other schools that they have quite a bit of history with.

To talk about ACC schools that Notre Dame wouldn't mind being grouped up with and you are talking Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt. That is a threesome that the Big Ten Presidents are not as likely to sign on the dotted line for, not if they have a choice between that and the other foursome. I just do not even bother to figure Notre Dame into my figures for the Big Ten. They have too many other choices that are a better fit for them.

(06-10-2012 04:38 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 11:58 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 10:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Why are people so stupified by the B1G? Stop thinking there is a Mold that each move has to fit into.

Penn State was a no brainer addition back when Penn State was shopping around. For Nebraska's add you have to look at the PAC. I see NO ONE making this connection. The PAC and B1G are tied together at the hip. The PAC was already in expansion, they were moving up and going to have a conference championship. The B1G needed a team to reach 12 so that it too could have a conference championship.

This is the most sensible point you have made. If its about brands more than numbers why not remain at 12, play a 9 game schedule (5 division, 4 cross division) for near round robin B1G competition maximizing the games against Nebraska, Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State for everyone else involved?

The B1G is pretty conservative. They've only added 3 schools over the past 60 years (Michigan State, Nebraska, Penn State). That is slow moving.

Ahhh I was hoping someone might take that angle. Now...since this was a move to pair up with the PAC we can then assume that the PAC and B1G are always in communication about possible future moves and intentions.

Don't you think the PAC and B1G were in discussions when it looked like the PAC was going to go to 16 with Texas and company? Hell even ESPN was talking about possible pods for the PAC. So if the PAC and B1G work on plans to mimic each other, it would be feasible to say that it was very likely that the B1G was looking at plans of it's own on how it could get to 16 as well right?

So that means this has been an idea tossed around between higher ups in the B1G conference for awhile. It is not such an out there idea that B1G Presidents would be thinking sixteen and what Pods or four divisions could do for the B1G.

So when I start looking around at potential moves I look for a four team grouping that could fit into a pod much like how the Texoma-4 would have fit for the PAC. That is not to say that if the Texoma-4 would have gone that UMD/UVA/UNC/Duke would have been in the B1G. It would have been a different foursome for the Big Ten.

The mentality is likely there still though for the Big Ten and if moves made by other major conference lead to the above foursome being open to the Big Ten then I think the Big Ten takes a serious look at the possibilities and how much money it would bring in. The Coaches would love it, strong new recruiting grounds without any major programs coming in. That is a goldmine for our existing football programs.

Now, we already have a scheduling contract with the PAC so if we go to 16 we will still have it. It just means that four teams would be allowed to know in advance what years they wouldn't have a scheduled game against the PAC and thus schedule another OOC game on their own. It isn't that big of a deal.

If those four fall in our lap I highly doubt our UNC graduate Commissioner doesn't take a good hard look. As far as the culture goes, Penn State didn't fit the culture when it joined and Nebraska is the same. They paired up Nebraska with Iowa right away to form a new thanksgiving rivalry in order to try and bring them into the fold as quickly as possible.

If we did get those four we would likely move to some type of pod structure until new rules could be achieved from the NCAA. With that type of major restructuring it makes any cultural differences minimized as the new arrivals would have their own pod/division.

So, due to the PAC/B1G relationship the Big Ten has already been introduced to the feasibility of 16 and what that could possibly bring to the conference. Obviously the consortium thinks there is substantial potential there, otherwise the PAC wouldn't have looked at the Texoma-4 at all.

I don't know about this being discussed very seriously until both sides got to 12 and chose to remain there. The decision(s) to stop at 12 may also have been made with such an agreement in mind.

The issue with thinking the Big Ten and PAC-12 would work in concert to reach 16 is that the one moving first leaves or left the other with subpar options.

IIRC, the Texas>PAC-10 talk was really about 2010 and the closest it got was something like Texas/A&M/Tech/OU/OSU/Colorado to go to 16, which is where the Baylor lawsuits started getting tossed around originally. I think Utah replaced A&M for a short time when it was clear A&M wasn't interested in going west. I don't really remember fully.

In that scenario, the Big Ten's realistic options were Missouri, Kansas if they could be separated, Syracuse and......? Rutgers? Notre Dame as unlikely as it was? The move to 16 thus made sense to the PAC-10 but not the Big Ten.

If we go to a future scenario where the ACC teams are available and the Big Ten takes Duke/UNC/MD/UVA, the Big XII is likely to have strengthened itself to some level of invulnerability, leaving the PAC-12 with the options of heavily lowering its standards to find 4 teams in the west to add or creating some sort of eastern time zone pod, a logisitical nightmare outside of football and possibly unappealing to a lot of schools based on start times for events for TV purposes with 9am PST or 10-11pm EST kickoffs.

(06-09-2012 11:55 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 09:07 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Actually, I could see them dropping some weaker teams. Would the PAC be worth less if it dropped Washington State and/or Oregon State?

(06-09-2012 09:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  At some point, that has to be the next step. Every league has teams they could drop without losing any TV money and could split it fewer ways.

I absolutely don't understand the mindset that Division I conferences would drop underperforming teams from their conference. These aren't just teams we are talking about; they are athletic programs representing universities. These teams/universities have long-standing relationships that go beyond how well a particular team has performed over a particular time span. The whole idea that a conference would drop a member due to performance on the field/court is bizarre to me. What kind of bastards would do that to a fellow conference member?

Pop quiz: How many teams/universities have been kicked out of a major conference due to "weakness?"

One - TEMPLE - then a WEAKENED BE let them back in during the WV flap.

Temple was also a football-only member at that time. If you're only in a league in one sport and you're positively brutal at that sport, getting kicked is a lot more likely.

(06-10-2012 08:19 AM)panite Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 11:55 PM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 09:07 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Actually, I could see them dropping some weaker teams. Would the PAC be worth less if it dropped Washington State and/or Oregon State?

(06-09-2012 09:26 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  At some point, that has to be the next step. Every league has teams they could drop without losing any TV money and could split it fewer ways.

I absolutely don't understand the mindset that Division I conferences would drop underperforming teams from their conference. These aren't just teams we are talking about; they are athletic programs representing universities. These teams/universities have long-standing relationships that go beyond how well a particular team has performed over a particular time span. The whole idea that a conference would drop a member due to performance on the field/court is bizarre to me. What kind of bastards would do that to a fellow conference member?

Pop quiz: How many teams/universities have been kicked out of a major conference due to "weakness?"

One - TEMPLE - then a WEAKENED BE let them back in during the WV flap.

To continue the PAC example... Their current TV deal is $225 million per year divided between 12 schools. If they divide that among 10 schools that is a 20% increase. The Big 12 proved this is possible.

If the PAC were to replace 2 teams with a Texas/Oklahoma caliber it could be significantly more than a 20% increase.

I think we are a ways from this happening but it is coming.

(06-09-2012 09:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  There's a big issue I see with B1G expansion to 16 (as Dave Brandon alluded - although he never made any specific mention of *who* would be going to 16 teams). Aside from ND, what are 3 schools that fit the B1G criteria that add value to the conference, especially from a football perspective, that are in neighboring states? I don't really see any that truly qualify. I doubt the B1G will expand for the sake of expansion - even if it is just to try to get a "new market" or to *have* to get to 16 schools. If they added Nebraska and Penn State, but have openly turned down Mizzou, then I don't see them adding Maryland, Rutgers, UVA, etc. just to get to 16. Why on earth would they split the pie by an additional 33% if they don't add anyone with value? Even if they brought back the idea of Mizzou and somehow convinced ND to give up football independence, they'd still need 2 more schools to get to 16. There just aren't any at this point. Maybe if Rutgers starts dominating the BE or Maryland starts winning games in the ACC, but I just don't see them as quality additions to the B1G. They're fine schools and AAU members, but they don't provide the brand of football that the B1G would almost require of any new addition.

IIRC, when the B1G was talking about expansion it was determined that there were quite a few schools that would add value to the conference. I think this was because of the BTN. The reason that the B1G didn't add any other schools was caution. They didn't handle the addition of PSU very well, per Delaney, and wanted to see how things went with Nebraska.

(06-09-2012 12:29 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 12:07 PM)Louis Kitton Wrote:  I can definitely see where Maryland and Rutgers would add a ton of value to the B1G package.

I: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn St, Ohio St, Michigan, Indiana, Northwestern
II: Michigan St, Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa

This would give the Big 3 (Penn St, Michigan, Ohio St) a road game each year on the East Coast probably in an NFL Stadium which would be nice for the massive amounts of alumni those schools have in the DC/NY markets.

New Jersey and Maryland automatically become B1G states and interest in the B1G Network in DC/NYC sky rockets.

Rutgers has their program built up to the point where they would make a great rival for Penn State. They could win 8 games out of the B1G.

Maryland would be an Indiana type add for the conference but worth it for the media market. The entire state of MD+DC+NOVA and throwing in Delaware equals 10 million. That is a lot more value to the B1G than say Missouri.

But not in perception. The BTN already has better ratings outside the B1G states than within (or at least Delany said so last week). Rutgers and Maryland are fine schools and are in major markets, but they don't have the football brand that fits the B1G mold. That's why I think they won't be added until they can firmly establish themselves as a national brand, which they may never be able to do. Mizzou may not have the markets Maryland or Rutgers have, but they at least have a much more recognized power football brand than those two do.

I don't remember that. Do you have a link? I know that the head fo the BTN said that the BTN is available in more homes outside of the footprint.

(06-09-2012 02:32 PM)OrangeCrush22 Wrote:  I think the addition of Nebraska shows the reluctance to expand eastward. Penn State, mainly Paterno, has the been the only vocal voice proposing eastern candidates in Pitt and Syracuse.

Actually, Rutgers was at the top of the list. When PSU joined they tried to get the B1G to include RU. It is true that Paterno almost always mentioned all three schools as possible B1G additions.

(06-09-2012 11:12 PM)bronconick Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 01:12 PM)ULdave Wrote:  It's to bad that cultural elitism matters so much in the B1G. One of the nations best (and most eager to move) athletic departments is literally under its nose.

I'm a lot more tolerant in general of the Big Ten's academic snobbery because they back it up with real $$$ in the CIC.

If the ACC was past the planning and butt-sniffing stage with their ACCIAC comparable and had real money invested in it instead of the 6 figure numbers currently involved (an idea Shalala brought with her to Miami from Wisconsin), any talk of teams leaving would be laughable, because research grant money dwarfs the difference in TV contract payouts.

For the umpteenth time, the CIC has nothing to do with research grants. I'm so sick of addressing this I'm not even going to get into this topic.

(06-10-2012 02:00 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Nebraska in the long run is gonna be a mistake for the B-10.
Between NY, NJ, Va & NC is 50 million people, that alot of cable TV.

Nebraska is a king! They travel as well as anyone and are a VERY big national draw on tv. Unless their football team becomes a loser they are going to continue to add value to the B1G for the foreseeable future.

(06-10-2012 02:00 AM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Nebraska in the long run is gonna be a mistake for the B-10.
Between NY, NJ, Va & NC is 50 million people, that alot of cable TV.

Nebraska is a nationwide brand - with alums/supporters everywhere.

There is even a radio station in Phoenix that is part of the Husker Radio Network.

For the last half century Nebraska has sold out every single home game. Name another school anywhere that has such a loyal following...

(06-10-2012 04:45 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-10-2012 02:43 AM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  Nebraska though is the "home sports team" for South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska. Plus it's popular in surrounding states (Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma). That's a lot of people. I don't know if Nebraska can return to its 70-90s state...but they'll always be a CFB name.

As a UNC fan living in PA, I would pay more for BTN if UNC was going to be on BTN three times as much as ESPN. I might even watch a UNC football Thursday night home game against Minnesota or Wisconsin if it were on the BTN.

That said, I don't see the Big Ten adding four ACC schools. It changes the league dynamic far too much. ND plus 3 ACC schools? I could see it. Rutgers plus 3 ACC schools? Less likely but maybe.

(The next shoe that drops might be watching what the ACC does if it loses Clemson/FSU. Do they grab Rutgers/UConn immediately? If Rutgers floats a bit, I'd guess they are waiting for a verbal Big Ten offer to become written.)

I'm sorry but the whole idea of expansion with these particular schools from the ACC is that they become more comfortable with the idea of this move because they will be with three other schools that they have quite a bit of history with.

To talk about ACC schools that Notre Dame wouldn't mind being grouped up with and you are talking Boston College, Syracuse and Pitt. That is a threesome that the Big Ten Presidents are not as likely to sign on the dotted line for, not if they have a choice between that and the other foursome. I just do not even bother to figure Notre Dame into my figures for the Big Ten. They have too many other choices that are a better fit for them.

I'm going in the other direction with this. If the Irish joined the Big Ten, they don't need any more midwest/eastern opponents. They are set. The Irish do fine in the New England area currently...without any real "yearly" opponents there. If their looking for partners to join the Big Ten, I think they'd be more interested in a new region--like the southeast or perhaps Texas. A Big Ten that spans from Minnesota to Iowa to PA to NC...is awfully geographically diverse.

I find the "BTN outside the footprint" discussions intriguing. Having lived in SoCal, I know it was hard for me to find PSU games on TV. I bought GamePlan one year (about $120 for the CFB season I think?), but without that, I think I only caught 6 or 7 PSU games on basic cable and network. And don't even ask about PSU basketball (nobody else does either). I could see it being even more popular in major cities like SD, LA, SF, Phoenix...because there are a huge number of Big Ten graduates total.

If the Big Ten snags more schools and keeps all its tier 2 content, it really might bump itself up as a nationally desirable cable entity. With some sort of partnership with PacNet, the sky could even be higher.

(06-11-2012 12:06 PM)allthatyoucantleavebehind Wrote:  If the Big Ten snags more schools and keeps all its tier 2 content

You don't want to keep all of tier 2 for the BTN. That would mean having only about 16-18 football games ("tier 1") on regular outlets like ESPN or broadcast.

The Pac-12 has 22 FB games on ESPN/ESPN2/ABC and 22 on Fox broadcast/FX. That still leaves roughly 35 FB games for PTN. Maybe you could increase that number slightly for BTN, but not much. You want to have 3-5 games per week on regular broadcast or cable outlets IMO.

I just really don't care to see Notre Dame in the Big Ten. I think it would be bad for them, I think it is the worst choice available to them. If it is bad for them as far as the future goes and their football program then it is bad for the Big Ten too.

If we are going to move to 16, its markets markets markets. Whomever joins us is going to get a big boost in their pay day so even if they have mediocre football programs now they are going to be able to move up the ladder as far as paying for coaches. They are going to be able to boost their facilities.

When you look at a Virginia, you see a team that most people disrespect yet last season they showed that the potential is there. The same goes for Maryland, the potential is there, they just need money. That is why they are whoring out their playing field to Under Armour. Duke? Well who cares, their purpose is to lose in football while bringing in the number one basketball brand in the country. North Carolina is in a unique position to really build their football program. I think people there are beginning to realize how important that will be.

Of course that is all contingent on FSU actually choosing to leave and not being just a single domino but I like that foursome addition for the Big Ten much better than one involving Notre Dame.

(06-09-2012 09:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  If they added Nebraska and Penn State, but have openly turned down Mizzou, then I don't see them adding Maryland, Rutgers, UVA, etc. just to get to 16. Why on earth would they split the pie by an additional 33% if they don't add anyone with value?

Because this is the damn "Conference Realignment Board" where common sense responses are an afterthought. Most posters here have an agenda they would rather push whether it makes f'ing sense or not. So while what you say makes perfect sense, it will fall on deaf ears for that same reason; because it makes sense and didn't come from the mind of the "make-believe-la-la-land".

That is all!!!

(06-11-2012 06:23 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 09:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  If they added Nebraska and Penn State, but have openly turned down Mizzou, then I don't see them adding Maryland, Rutgers, UVA, etc. just to get to 16. Why on earth would they split the pie by an additional 33% if they don't add anyone with value?

Because this is the damn "Conference Realignment Board" where common sense responses are an afterthought. Most posters here have an agenda they would rather push whether it makes f'ing sense or not. So while what you say makes perfect sense, it will fall on deaf ears for that same reason; because it makes sense.

That is all!!!

What a stupid post. This is what I was talking about in that other thread. We are talking about the Big Ten. There are characteristics to Maryland and Virginia that make them MUCH more interesting to the Big Ten than Missouri.

That makes perfect sense. Now whether or not they will ever be available to the Big Ten is a totally different conversation. That is the part that obviously falls on deaf ears with you. This is about programs and institutions that would make sense for the Big Ten IF they were available. Can you comprehend that?

(06-11-2012 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 06:23 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 09:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  If they added Nebraska and Penn State, but have openly turned down Mizzou, then I don't see them adding Maryland, Rutgers, UVA, etc. just to get to 16. Why on earth would they split the pie by an additional 33% if they don't add anyone with value?

Because this is the damn "Conference Realignment Board" where common sense responses are an afterthought. Most posters here have an agenda they would rather push whether it makes f'ing sense or not. So while what you say makes perfect sense, it will fall on deaf ears for that same reason; because it makes sense.

That is all!!!

What a stupid post. This is what I was talking about in that other thread. We are talking about the Big Ten. There are characteristics to Maryland and Virginia that make them MUCH more interesting to the Big Ten than Missouri.

That makes perfect sense. Now whether or not they will ever be available to the Big Ten is a totally different conversation. That is the part that obviously falls on deaf ears with you. This is about programs and institutions that would make sense for the Big Ten IF they were available. Can you comprehend that?

This wasn't about you knucklehead unless you believe you fall into that category. Otherwise, stop looking for a pissing match and keep it moving.

(06-11-2012 06:34 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 06:23 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 09:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  If they added Nebraska and Penn State, but have openly turned down Mizzou, then I don't see them adding Maryland, Rutgers, UVA, etc. just to get to 16. Why on earth would they split the pie by an additional 33% if they don't add anyone with value?

Because this is the damn "Conference Realignment Board" where common sense responses are an afterthought. Most posters here have an agenda they would rather push whether it makes f'ing sense or not. So while what you say makes perfect sense, it will fall on deaf ears for that same reason; because it makes sense.

That is all!!!

What a stupid post. This is what I was talking about in that other thread. We are talking about the Big Ten. There are characteristics to Maryland and Virginia that make them MUCH more interesting to the Big Ten than Missouri.

That makes perfect sense. Now whether or not they will ever be available to the Big Ten is a totally different conversation. That is the part that obviously falls on deaf ears with you. This is about programs and institutions that would make sense for the Big Ten IF they were available. Can you comprehend that?

This wasn't about you knucklehead unless you believe you fall into that category. Otherwise, stop looking for a pissing match and keep it moving.

I have talked plenty about Maryland and Virginia making sense for the Big Ten so yeah it does involve me considering your statement was very generalized.

The pie being split more ways with the addition of those east coast schools will easily be matched by the markets they bring in and the extra NCAA tourney credits they bring to the Big Ten.

Once again though, I am not saying it will happen.

So no, I will not move on. If you want to make such statements you should expect a response calling you out for it from time to time. So...either respond reasonably to my assertion or run along yourself proving you are not here for conversation, but instead to just troll and insult....SOMETHING that has very recently had a moderation statement made in regards to similar behavior. It is rather hypocritical of you to say that I am the one looking for a pissing match.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=573476

(06-11-2012 06:43 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 06:34 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 06:26 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(06-11-2012 06:23 PM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(06-09-2012 09:14 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  If they added Nebraska and Penn State, but have openly turned down Mizzou, then I don't see them adding Maryland, Rutgers, UVA, etc. just to get to 16. Why on earth would they split the pie by an additional 33% if they don't add anyone with value?

Because this is the damn "Conference Realignment Board" where common sense responses are an afterthought. Most posters here have an agenda they would rather push whether it makes f'ing sense or not. So while what you say makes perfect sense, it will fall on deaf ears for that same reason; because it makes sense.

That is all!!!

What a stupid post. This is what I was talking about in that other thread. We are talking about the Big Ten. There are characteristics to Maryland and Virginia that make them MUCH more interesting to the Big Ten than Missouri.

That makes perfect sense. Now whether or not they will ever be available to the Big Ten is a totally different conversation. That is the part that obviously falls on deaf ears with you. This is about programs and institutions that would make sense for the Big Ten IF they were available. Can you comprehend that?

This wasn't about you knucklehead unless you believe you fall into that category. Otherwise, stop looking for a pissing match and keep it moving.

I have talked plenty about Maryland and Virginia making sense for the Big Ten so yeah it does involve me considering your statement was very generalized.

The pie being split more ways with the addition of those east coast schools will easily be matched by the markets they bring in and the extra NCAA tourney credits they bring to the Big Ten.

Once again though, I am not saying it will happen.

So no, I will not move on. If you want to make such statements you should expect a response calling you out for it from time to time. So...either respond reasonably to my assertion or run along yourself proving you are not here for conversation, but instead to just troll and insult....SOMETHING that has very recently had a moderation statement made in regards to similar behavior. It is rather hypocritical of you to say that I am the one looking for a pissing match.

http://csnbbs.com/showthread.php?tid=573476

Like I said, it wasn't about you but yet you are making it about you. So you go ahead and continue to make it about you it because apparently you like bringing attention to yourself.

You calling me out.....ha-larry-us!!! You didn't even get my post was intended to be cynical GET IT....CYNICAL!!! to those who continually make stuff up even when common sense should prevail. You apparently didn't fall into the category of la-la land but yet.......lol....but yet you made my cynical post about you.......priceless.

Now you continue on with your rant because I know you will feel the need to have the last word. Cheerios!!!

(06-09-2012 01:49 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Maybe the Big 10, is the late 1950's NFL. We like our product, we like our markets and we aren't terribly inclined to change.

The AFL was basically a group of millionaires who wanted NFL teams and couldn't get them. Minnesota and Dallas were the appeasement strategy.

The difference being I don't think there is a potential AFL out there to force the Big 10's hand and the Big 10 has an ownership stake in part of their TV package, something the NFL didn't have.

There just aren't many schools out there that have a profile that screams Big 10.

There are a few schools whose profile screams Big 10: Pitt, Georgia Tech, North Carolina, and Texas. But Pitt will never happen due to Penn State, Georgia Tech is too far away to add on its own, and UNC and UT are happier where they are now.