(05-31-2013 04:32 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(05-31-2013 04:18 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  From SI.com - you can listen to the whole 27 minutes, as there's a lot of other interesting tidbits in there.

http://college-football.si.com/2013/05/3...&eref=sihp

"We've for some time talked about the need for us to expand the footprint of the Big 10 without getting too far outside of our geography. Texas, Georgia Tech, those are the kind of places we have talked about, but they are geographically a little challenging. We also have talked for some time about Maryland and Rutgers, but we wanted to pair those two together."

“[The addition of Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten] gives us 40 to 50 million more viewers, makes the BTN worth more money than God. I did say that. It’s a very powerful instrument for us.”

“This is a high possibility. If the ACC continues to struggle, and Florida State goes off to the SEC or something like that, and Clemson moves in a different direction, all of a sudden Virginia and Duke, which are very similar institutions to — and North Carolina — which are very similar institutions to the Big Ten, there is a real possibility that we may end up having that kind of T which goes south. And I could see them joining us. And I could see them having a real interest in joining us.”

“I think that when we added Nebraska, it caused a whole domino effect that I don't think that we quite predicted. I think if we had predicted that, we would have added Missouri and Kansas at the same time, right Gene?"
Gene (OSU's AD) - "That was on the table."
Gee - "And Pitt was on the table. You know Penn State just abhors Pitt. It would be the same way. Even though we love Cincinnati as a city, we want it to be an Ohio State city. They’d have to take Gene out and shoot him to let Cincinnati into the Big Ten. There are some things that we just would not to. And that’s the way that Penn State also feels about Pitt. One of the problems we have is that Iowa has tremendous pressure about Iowa State. But we're not interested about Iowa State. We are interested in Missouri and Kansas eventually I think... This all has to be speculation that remains right here, and I could see eventually that t that goes South, all according to what happens with the ACC, so we need to be ready to move.”


He also had some comments on the NCAA in general:

“My view, very candidly — and I’ve said this to you before and I’m not certain if [athletic director] Gene [Smith] shares this, we haven’t really talked about this — but I think we’re moving precipitously toward about three or four superconferences of about 16 to 20 teams. And the possibility of them bolting from the NCAA is not unlikely.”

“The smaller schools in the Divisions II and III, which have substantial power but no power in terms of television draw or anything else, they have increasingly become rigid about the way that we change some of the rules in support of the revenue-generating institutions. And eventually that’s gonna drive us all into a new kind of a configuration. And that’s where I think we’re going.”



IMO, these are more interesting than his jokes on Catholics or the SEC. Also, please don't discuss those parts of his comments as that thread is already shut down.

I've seen this play run before.

They ran it to get Division I split into I-A and I-AA in football.
Ran it again to push more of I-A into I-AA.
Used that play to create the federated governance structure.

I suspect there are two possible plays being considering.

Play #1. Strengthening the power of the "equity" conferences. Tweaking the system so you don't see another situation like the stipend where the power leagues approve it and the have nots get it knocked out.

Play #2 Back out of the deal cut when the federated governance structure was adopted that preserved for eternity the revenue formula for the NCAA.

Yep

Greed and arrogance.

(06-01-2013 11:56 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  I never understood the logic that Jordan's tenure made PSU's Big Ten membership a fait accompli even before 1990. If there was any common sense between the likes of Pitt, Syracuse, BC, PSU, WVU, Army, and Navy...if that core was bound, it wouldn't matter what other conferences did...the students, alumni, and boosters at those schools would have made it difficult to leave without some back-room shenanigans making it impossible to stop (which is kind of what Jordan had to do at PSU without Paterno, which should say something). It's easy to say now that academics would have made a mover of some of these schools...but that's as neither here nor there, just as my suspicion is. We don't know. It didn't happen that way.

That's the legacy of the eastern independents and the mid-south. Even the short detentes are just that: short. There has never been any sort of allegiance to anyone. Not even between intrastate peer institutions. And all are just as guilty as they are a victim.

This is going to be a monumental year in these parts. Not only is it probably the last time anyone will see Louisville, Cincinnati, and Memphis in a conference together for football and basketball again in their lifetime, but it's also the first time not a single PA Commonwealth school (Pitt, PSU, and Temple) will be playing each other in football since the Depression. Add West Virginia to that stat, and you have to go back to 1899.

What do you mean by "mid-south"?

If you're talking about UC, UL, and Memphis, 3 teams don't make a conference. We'd like to stick together, but none of us is strong enough to be "the" school to form a conference around (like OSU, Florida, Texas). Before 1990, three of us were much weaker than any of Pitt, WVU, PSU, and Syracuse. The other powerful "mid-South" region schools (Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio State) have been aligned with Midwestern or Southern conferences from since before 1920.

I guess WVU and VT could have been included, but that's still only 5 teams. Besides, WVU chose to have their rivals in the East and we rarely played them, and VT wasn't a power until the 1990s. In the end, they chose to align with the Eastern football powers rather than the Mid-South basketball powers.

So unless we're satisfied with being big fish in a small pond, UL, UC and Memphis are sort of at the mercy of other schools who choose to invite us.

(06-02-2013 09:09 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 04:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, WVU wasn't bending over for anything. WVU AD Red Brown refused all of the demands put forth by Penn State, and Leland Byrd, who replaced Brown, tried to work on a compromise solution. But by the time Byrd resigned as WVU's AD, BC and Syracuse had already made their decision to bail on their old rivals for the Big East...

Before I can go into further detail about the events that surrounded the possible formation of JoePa's dream conference, I'd have to go into the WV Archives and dig into the old man's notes. He had all the details of all the meetings, including the minutes of all those meetings, as well as notes on the conversations that occurred before and after the meetings...

Joe Paterno didn't begin his eastern conference in earnest until two years after the Big East was formed.

Here is the excerpt from Jake Crouthamel's History of the Big East:

http://www.suathletics.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx

In the Spring of 1978, only a few months after my arrival in Syracuse, Dave Gavitt, Jack Kaiser and Frank Rienzo, Athletics Directors at Providence, St. Johns and Georgetown respectively, gathered to discuss newly imposed NCAA men's basketball in-season scheduling requirements. These requirements forced independent institutions like the four of us to align and schedule schools with whom we had no interest or tradition. Self determination was far better than being told who your partners would be, and so the four of us met for countless hours in countless sessions to determine the make-up of our new conference to be. We considered the quality of men's basketball programs in the northeast, regional representation, significant media markets, etc. Boston College was invited over Holy Cross, UMass and Boston University. Connecticut was then added. Rutgers was extended an invitation but declined because it was aligned in the Atlantic 8 (now the Atlantic 10) along with Penn State. Rutgers didn't feel comfortable disassociating itself with Penn State. Seton Hall took Rutgers spot. Villanova was also in the Atlantic 8, but it joined up a year later over Temple and St. Josephs. Thus, in the first year of operation, 1979-80, we had seven active members which increased to eight in 1980-81.

After only two years of existence as a conference formed specifically for men's basketball, football became an issue. Joe Paterno, head football coach and then Director of Athletics at Penn State, had been trying to put together an all-sports conference of the eastern Division IA independent schools. They included Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia and Temple. While our football fortunes would be well served through such an alignment, it would have been a step backward for men's basketball. To enter into such an alignment Syracuse and Boston College would have had to leave the BIG EAST.

The above information about when JoePa was trying to start up the eastern league is backed up by Leland Byrd himself in an article from July 8, 1981:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=25...08,1055123

Neil, the drive to form an eastern all sports conference had been an ongoing effort since the late 1960s. Paterno wasn't the only one pushing. He was merely the most high profile name. Red Brown and Leland Byrd both took part in meetings to that effect. I remember my father covering one such effort in the summer of 1968...

You may very well be correct, but it apparently wasn't a significant try that others clearly remember.

When I search for Red Brown, Leland Byrd, and eastern conference all I get are links to WVU athletics history due to Red Brown and Leland Byrd. Googled Red Brown and eastern conference and I got nothing. Googled Leland Byrd and eastern conference and all I got was the article I previously posted when he was Associate Commissioner of the Eastern 8.

Google JoePa and eastern conference and one finds pages and pages of articles and essays about it.

Cheers,
Neil

(06-02-2013 03:01 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:09 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 04:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, WVU wasn't bending over for anything. WVU AD Red Brown refused all of the demands put forth by Penn State, and Leland Byrd, who replaced Brown, tried to work on a compromise solution. But by the time Byrd resigned as WVU's AD, BC and Syracuse had already made their decision to bail on their old rivals for the Big East...

Before I can go into further detail about the events that surrounded the possible formation of JoePa's dream conference, I'd have to go into the WV Archives and dig into the old man's notes. He had all the details of all the meetings, including the minutes of all those meetings, as well as notes on the conversations that occurred before and after the meetings...

Joe Paterno didn't begin his eastern conference in earnest until two years after the Big East was formed.

Here is the excerpt from Jake Crouthamel's History of the Big East:

http://www.suathletics.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx

In the Spring of 1978, only a few months after my arrival in Syracuse, Dave Gavitt, Jack Kaiser and Frank Rienzo, Athletics Directors at Providence, St. Johns and Georgetown respectively, gathered to discuss newly imposed NCAA men's basketball in-season scheduling requirements. These requirements forced independent institutions like the four of us to align and schedule schools with whom we had no interest or tradition. Self determination was far better than being told who your partners would be, and so the four of us met for countless hours in countless sessions to determine the make-up of our new conference to be. We considered the quality of men's basketball programs in the northeast, regional representation, significant media markets, etc. Boston College was invited over Holy Cross, UMass and Boston University. Connecticut was then added. Rutgers was extended an invitation but declined because it was aligned in the Atlantic 8 (now the Atlantic 10) along with Penn State. Rutgers didn't feel comfortable disassociating itself with Penn State. Seton Hall took Rutgers spot. Villanova was also in the Atlantic 8, but it joined up a year later over Temple and St. Josephs. Thus, in the first year of operation, 1979-80, we had seven active members which increased to eight in 1980-81.

After only two years of existence as a conference formed specifically for men's basketball, football became an issue. Joe Paterno, head football coach and then Director of Athletics at Penn State, had been trying to put together an all-sports conference of the eastern Division IA independent schools. They included Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia and Temple. While our football fortunes would be well served through such an alignment, it would have been a step backward for men's basketball. To enter into such an alignment Syracuse and Boston College would have had to leave the BIG EAST.

The above information about when JoePa was trying to start up the eastern league is backed up by Leland Byrd himself in an article from July 8, 1981:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=25...08,1055123

Neil, the drive to form an eastern all sports conference had been an ongoing effort since the late 1960s. Paterno wasn't the only one pushing. He was merely the most high profile name. Red Brown and Leland Byrd both took part in meetings to that effect. I remember my father covering one such effort in the summer of 1968...

You may very well be correct, but it apparently wasn't a significant try that others clearly remember.

When I search for Red Brown, Leland Byrd, and eastern conference all I get are links to WVU athletics history due to Red Brown and Leland Byrd. Googled Red Brown and eastern conference and I got nothing. Googled Leland Byrd and eastern conference and all I got was the article I previously posted when he was Associate Commissioner of the Eastern 8.

Google JoePa and eastern conference and one finds pages and pages of articles and essays about it.

The Eastern 8 was formed in 1975 as an attempt to get all the eastern indies to join a conference. The drive to form an eastern conference had been ongoing for about 8 years, and finally came to fruition with the formation of the Eastern 8...

However, not all the desired schools joined, including Syracuse and BC, who later persuaded Villanova (1980) and Pitt (1982) to leave the conference and join the Big East. Since not all the football schools bought into the effort to form an all sports conference, it forced the Eastern 8 to become a basketball only conference initially, rather than an all sports conference as was originally envisioned by the folks at WVU who were instrumental in the drive to form the conference. IMO the folks at Syracuse ignored the idea because it originated in Morgantown...

JoePa's push came after that one failed. Paterno grabbed that idea and ran with it, making it seem as if he alone came up with the idea...

(06-02-2013 06:00 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 03:01 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:09 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 08:05 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(06-01-2013 04:55 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Neil, WVU wasn't bending over for anything. WVU AD Red Brown refused all of the demands put forth by Penn State, and Leland Byrd, who replaced Brown, tried to work on a compromise solution. But by the time Byrd resigned as WVU's AD, BC and Syracuse had already made their decision to bail on their old rivals for the Big East...

Before I can go into further detail about the events that surrounded the possible formation of JoePa's dream conference, I'd have to go into the WV Archives and dig into the old man's notes. He had all the details of all the meetings, including the minutes of all those meetings, as well as notes on the conversations that occurred before and after the meetings...

Joe Paterno didn't begin his eastern conference in earnest until two years after the Big East was formed.

Here is the excerpt from Jake Crouthamel's History of the Big East:

http://www.suathletics.com/sports/2001/8/8/history.aspx

In the Spring of 1978, only a few months after my arrival in Syracuse, Dave Gavitt, Jack Kaiser and Frank Rienzo, Athletics Directors at Providence, St. Johns and Georgetown respectively, gathered to discuss newly imposed NCAA men's basketball in-season scheduling requirements. These requirements forced independent institutions like the four of us to align and schedule schools with whom we had no interest or tradition. Self determination was far better than being told who your partners would be, and so the four of us met for countless hours in countless sessions to determine the make-up of our new conference to be. We considered the quality of men's basketball programs in the northeast, regional representation, significant media markets, etc. Boston College was invited over Holy Cross, UMass and Boston University. Connecticut was then added. Rutgers was extended an invitation but declined because it was aligned in the Atlantic 8 (now the Atlantic 10) along with Penn State. Rutgers didn't feel comfortable disassociating itself with Penn State. Seton Hall took Rutgers spot. Villanova was also in the Atlantic 8, but it joined up a year later over Temple and St. Josephs. Thus, in the first year of operation, 1979-80, we had seven active members which increased to eight in 1980-81.

After only two years of existence as a conference formed specifically for men's basketball, football became an issue. Joe Paterno, head football coach and then Director of Athletics at Penn State, had been trying to put together an all-sports conference of the eastern Division IA independent schools. They included Syracuse, Boston College, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, West Virginia and Temple. While our football fortunes would be well served through such an alignment, it would have been a step backward for men's basketball. To enter into such an alignment Syracuse and Boston College would have had to leave the BIG EAST.

The above information about when JoePa was trying to start up the eastern league is backed up by Leland Byrd himself in an article from July 8, 1981:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=25...08,1055123

Neil, the drive to form an eastern all sports conference had been an ongoing effort since the late 1960s. Paterno wasn't the only one pushing. He was merely the most high profile name. Red Brown and Leland Byrd both took part in meetings to that effect. I remember my father covering one such effort in the summer of 1968...

You may very well be correct, but it apparently wasn't a significant try that others clearly remember.

When I search for Red Brown, Leland Byrd, and eastern conference all I get are links to WVU athletics history due to Red Brown and Leland Byrd. Googled Red Brown and eastern conference and I got nothing. Googled Leland Byrd and eastern conference and all I got was the article I previously posted when he was Associate Commissioner of the Eastern 8.

Google JoePa and eastern conference and one finds pages and pages of articles and essays about it.

The Eastern 8 was formed in 1975 as an attempt to get all the eastern indies to join a conference. The drive to form an eastern conference had been ongoing for about 8 years, and finally came to fruition with the formation of the Eastern 8...

However, not all the desired schools joined, including Syracuse and BC, who later persuaded Villanova (1980) and Pitt (1982) to leave the conference and join the Big East. Since not all the football schools bought into the effort to form an all sports conference, it forced the Eastern 8 to become a basketball only conference initially, rather than an all sports conference as was originally envisioned by the folks at WVU who were instrumental in the drive to form the conference. IMO the folks at Syracuse ignored the idea because it originated in Morgantown...

JoePa's push came after that one failed. Paterno grabbed that idea and ran with it, making it seem as if he alone came up with the idea...

The acknowledged history of The Eastern 8 was that it was originally founded in 1975 as The Eastern Collegiate Basketball League and the only sport it played was, not surprisingly,, basketball.

It added other sports after its initial season. The ECBL was formed to compete with the ECAC not other all-sports leagues or it wouldn't have had founding members such as George Washington (did they ever play football?), and small college football like Duquesne (whose football schedules coming up to the formation of the ECBL had on it Steubenville, Loyola, St. John's, Fordham, and Niagara with no appearances by the likes of Pitt or PSU or WVU or even Rutgers, who was playing a Middle Three Conference schedule at that point).

Rutgers, even though major college, wasn't even playing PSU, Pitt, or WVU at that point in time leading up to the formation of the ECBL while Villanova, the other founder which was a major college football team had a few games against WVU and PSU.

I honestly cannot recall any mention in the histories of Syracuse University athletics that I have read where Syracuse was even offered membership in that league, even for basketball.

But I will await to see if your search finds any documentation for this scenario.

Cheers,
Neil

How does adding Rutgers & Maryland add 40-50 million more viewers? Those states combine for about 14 million people. Does he think people in NY and CT will suddenly want to watch Rutgers FB? That's not gonna happen. Does he think people in VA and WV will suddenly want to watch Maryland FB? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I don't think his vision of 50 million more people watching B1G games is accurate simply because they added Rutgers & Maryland. Maybe someone with more media knowledge than I can explain this.

(06-02-2013 08:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  How does adding Rutgers & Maryland add 40-50 million more viewers? Those states combine for about 14 million people. Does he think people in NY and CT will suddenly want to watch Rutgers FB? That's not gonna happen. Does he think people in VA and WV will suddenly want to watch Maryland FB? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I don't think his vision of 50 million more people watching B1G games is accurate simply because they added Rutgers & Maryland. Maybe someone with more media knowledge than I can explain this.

Because all B1G schools have a lot of alumni in the area from DC to NYC, and they'll all be watching Rutgers and Maryland games now that they're conference members. Why else?

(06-02-2013 09:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 08:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  How does adding Rutgers & Maryland add 40-50 million more viewers? Those states combine for about 14 million people. Does he think people in NY and CT will suddenly want to watch Rutgers FB? That's not gonna happen. Does he think people in VA and WV will suddenly want to watch Maryland FB? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I don't think his vision of 50 million more people watching B1G games is accurate simply because they added Rutgers & Maryland. Maybe someone with more media knowledge than I can explain this.

Because all B1G schools have a lot of alumni in the area from DC to NYC, and they'll all be watching Rutgers and Maryland games now that they're conference members. Why else?

Why would a Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan State or an Illinois grad, for instance, care anything about watching a Rutgers game just because the two schools are in the same conference?

(06-02-2013 01:10 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  What do you mean by "mid-south"?

If you're talking about UC, UL, and Memphis, 3 teams don't make a conference. We'd like to stick together, but none of us is strong enough to be "the" school to form a conference around (like OSU, Florida, Texas). Before 1990, three of us were much weaker than any of Pitt, WVU, PSU, and Syracuse. The other powerful "mid-South" region schools (Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio State) have been aligned with Midwestern or Southern conferences from since before 1920.

I guess WVU and VT could have been included, but that's still only 5 teams. Besides, WVU chose to have their rivals in the East and we rarely played them, and VT wasn't a power until the 1990s. In the end, they chose to align with the Eastern football powers rather than the Mid-South basketball powers.

So unless we're satisfied with being big fish in a small pond, UL, UC and Memphis are sort of at the mercy of other schools who choose to invite us.

Their legacy isn't cooperative, though. It's predatory and political to an unfathomably irrational and detrimental degree.

Schools would use basketball against football, then use football to diminish the worth of others' basketball. And because of that, there were never any "big fish" the same way there were major players in conferences like the ACC, Big Ten, Big 8, SWC, and SEC.

As per the Omni and Bit convo about the formation of an eastern league, look into Ernest Casale's efforts in the 70's. Apparently, it had the support of all the "majors" of the region at that time except for PSU, which is why it failed.

Do people not realize that MD and NJ are NFL states for the most part? Maryland has to be insanely good in order for anyone to really care around where I live (I've lived here my whole life - this is a Redskins/Ravens area). Terps basketball seems to mean more to the people around here than Terps football.

The B1G isn't getting the market share that they think they're getting by adding MD and Rutgers.

(06-03-2013 06:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 08:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  How does adding Rutgers & Maryland add 40-50 million more viewers? Those states combine for about 14 million people. Does he think people in NY and CT will suddenly want to watch Rutgers FB? That's not gonna happen. Does he think people in VA and WV will suddenly want to watch Maryland FB? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I don't think his vision of 50 million more people watching B1G games is accurate simply because they added Rutgers & Maryland. Maybe someone with more media knowledge than I can explain this.

Because all B1G schools have a lot of alumni in the area from DC to NYC, and they'll all be watching Rutgers and Maryland games now that they're conference members. Why else?

Why would a Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan State or an Illinois grad, for instance, care anything about watching a Rutgers game just because the two schools are in the same conference?

1- It's one of the things that makes the giant fanbases so valuable. You not only get their fans when their game is on but frequently get a decent chunk watching other league games.

2- The more direct value is adding muscle to carriage negotiations. It isn't Rutgers and Maryland fans alone trying to get it on basic cable, it's those two plus 12 other school's worth of DC corridor alumni.

(06-03-2013 06:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 08:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  How does adding Rutgers & Maryland add 40-50 million more viewers? Those states combine for about 14 million people. Does he think people in NY and CT will suddenly want to watch Rutgers FB? That's not gonna happen. Does he think people in VA and WV will suddenly want to watch Maryland FB? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I don't think his vision of 50 million more people watching B1G games is accurate simply because they added Rutgers & Maryland. Maybe someone with more media knowledge than I can explain this.

Because all B1G schools have a lot of alumni in the area from DC to NYC, and they'll all be watching Rutgers and Maryland games now that they're conference members. Why else?

Why would a Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan State or an Illinois grad, for instance, care anything about watching a Rutgers game just because the two schools are in the same conference?

Maryland and Rutgers are going to be in the same division as Ohio State and Michigan State. So their games will impact their divisional race. You don't think Ohio State or Michigan State fans will be tuned in if Rutgers or Maryland is giving Michigan a run for the money in a game? If so, you're deluding yourself...

I doubt Illinois and Minnesota fans will care much, unless they're playing them, since they're in a different division. But if Rutgers or Maryland is upsetting the Buckeyes or Wolverines, I think they'd tune in to the game. Everyone loves to see the big dog go down...

I know some MAC fans, including me, will watch games with 2 other MAC teams, even those in the other division. So I'd have to think some Big 14 fans will too.

The IU-PSU game played in Landover outdrew the UMD-FSU game at Byrd. Indiana was the home team. Both UMD and FSU were ranked, I think.

PSU-Cuse at Metlife will probably be the most attended (and watched) game in the northeast.

If one wonders why UMD and RU "create" this new, ungodly share; at the very least, it captures the reach of schools with massive alumni bases like Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan. Neither school have the deepest ties with the Big Ten, but their area is teeming with alumni who will mix well with UMD and RU fans.

I will always want Pitt in the B1G, but until that happens, I couldn't be happier with UMD and Rutgers. It's going to help make this region feel "connected" again, college sports-wise. I'm happy that these two schools will be our rivals, with Ohio State and Nebraska already in the bag.

(06-03-2013 09:15 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  The IU-PSU game played in Landover outdrew the UMD-FSU game at Byrd. Indiana was the home team. Both UMD and FSU were ranked, I think.

PSU-Cuse at Metlife will probably be the most attended (and watched) game in the northeast.

If one wonders why UMD and RU "create" this new, ungodly share; at the very least, it captures the reach of schools with massive alumni bases like Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan. Neither school have the deepest ties with the Big Ten, but their area is teeming with alumni who will mix well with UMD and RU fans.

I will always want Pitt in the B1G, but until that happens, I couldn't be happier with UMD and Rutgers. It's going to help make this region feel "connected" again, college sports-wise. I'm happy that these two schools will be our rivals, with Ohio State and Nebraska already in the bag.

I believe you are talking about 2010. Neither Maryland nor FSU were ranked and FedEx Field seats about 30k more than Byrd Stadium.

(06-03-2013 08:12 AM)S11 Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 06:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 08:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  How does adding Rutgers & Maryland add 40-50 million more viewers? Those states combine for about 14 million people. Does he think people in NY and CT will suddenly want to watch Rutgers FB? That's not gonna happen. Does he think people in VA and WV will suddenly want to watch Maryland FB? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I don't think his vision of 50 million more people watching B1G games is accurate simply because they added Rutgers & Maryland. Maybe someone with more media knowledge than I can explain this.

Because all B1G schools have a lot of alumni in the area from DC to NYC, and they'll all be watching Rutgers and Maryland games now that they're conference members. Why else?

Why would a Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan State or an Illinois grad, for instance, care anything about watching a Rutgers game just because the two schools are in the same conference?

1- It's one of the things that makes the giant fanbases so valuable. You not only get their fans when their game is on but frequently get a decent chunk watching other league games.

2- The more direct value is adding muscle to carriage negotiations. It isn't Rutgers and Maryland fans alone trying to get it on basic cable, it's those two plus 12 other school's worth of DC corridor alumni.

I get the second part. I just don't get the first part.

If I were a Minnesota Gopher fan, I would have as much interest in a Maryland game as I would a South African soccer game, i.e., none at all.

(06-03-2013 08:38 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 06:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 08:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  How does adding Rutgers & Maryland add 40-50 million more viewers? Those states combine for about 14 million people. Does he think people in NY and CT will suddenly want to watch Rutgers FB? That's not gonna happen. Does he think people in VA and WV will suddenly want to watch Maryland FB? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I don't think his vision of 50 million more people watching B1G games is accurate simply because they added Rutgers & Maryland. Maybe someone with more media knowledge than I can explain this.

Because all B1G schools have a lot of alumni in the area from DC to NYC, and they'll all be watching Rutgers and Maryland games now that they're conference members. Why else?

Why would a Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan State or an Illinois grad, for instance, care anything about watching a Rutgers game just because the two schools are in the same conference?

Maryland and Rutgers are going to be in the same division as Ohio State and Michigan State. So their games will impact their divisional race. You don't think Ohio State or Michigan State fans will be tuned in if Rutgers or Maryland is giving Michigan a run for the money in a game? If so, you're deluding yourself...

I doubt Illinois and Minnesota fans will care much, unless they're playing them, since they're in a different division. But if Rutgers or Maryland is upsetting the Buckeyes or Wolverines, I think they'd tune in to the game. Everyone loves to see the big dog go down...

I must be deluding myself. If it were me, I would check the final score but not watch the game, at all.

(06-03-2013 09:23 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 09:15 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  The IU-PSU game played in Landover outdrew the UMD-FSU game at Byrd. Indiana was the home team. Both UMD and FSU were ranked, I think.

PSU-Cuse at Metlife will probably be the most attended (and watched) game in the northeast.

If one wonders why UMD and RU "create" this new, ungodly share; at the very least, it captures the reach of schools with massive alumni bases like Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan. Neither school have the deepest ties with the Big Ten, but their area is teeming with alumni who will mix well with UMD and RU fans.

I will always want Pitt in the B1G, but until that happens, I couldn't be happier with UMD and Rutgers. It's going to help make this region feel "connected" again, college sports-wise. I'm happy that these two schools will be our rivals, with Ohio State and Nebraska already in the bag.

I believe you are talking about 2010. Neither Maryland nor FSU were ranked and FedEx Field seats about 30k more than Byrd Stadium.

Neither game sold out. I'm basing it off this: http://www.yurasko.net/wfy/2010/11/penn-...state.html

(06-03-2013 10:45 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 08:38 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-03-2013 06:04 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 09:41 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(06-02-2013 08:59 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  How does adding Rutgers & Maryland add 40-50 million more viewers? Those states combine for about 14 million people. Does he think people in NY and CT will suddenly want to watch Rutgers FB? That's not gonna happen. Does he think people in VA and WV will suddenly want to watch Maryland FB? I doubt that's gonna happen.

I don't think his vision of 50 million more people watching B1G games is accurate simply because they added Rutgers & Maryland. Maybe someone with more media knowledge than I can explain this.

Because all B1G schools have a lot of alumni in the area from DC to NYC, and they'll all be watching Rutgers and Maryland games now that they're conference members. Why else?

Why would a Ohio State, Minnesota, Michigan State or an Illinois grad, for instance, care anything about watching a Rutgers game just because the two schools are in the same conference?

Maryland and Rutgers are going to be in the same division as Ohio State and Michigan State. So their games will impact their divisional race. You don't think Ohio State or Michigan State fans will be tuned in if Rutgers or Maryland is giving Michigan a run for the money in a game? If so, you're deluding yourself...

I doubt Illinois and Minnesota fans will care much, unless they're playing them, since they're in a different division. But if Rutgers or Maryland is upsetting the Buckeyes or Wolverines, I think they'd tune in to the game. Everyone loves to see the big dog go down...

I must be deluding myself. If it were me, I would check the final score but not watch the game, at all.

I agree, I don't see it. Ohio State-Maryland will be no more interesting to football fans than, say, Oregon-Washington State or Alabama-Kentucky.

(06-03-2013 09:15 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  The IU-PSU game played in Landover outdrew the UMD-FSU game at Byrd. Indiana was the home team. Both UMD and FSU were ranked, I think.

PSU-Cuse at Metlife will probably be the most attended (and watched) game in the northeast.

If one wonders why UMD and RU "create" this new, ungodly share; at the very least, it captures the reach of schools with massive alumni bases like Penn State, Ohio State, and Michigan. Neither school have the deepest ties with the Big Ten, but their area is teeming with alumni who will mix well with UMD and RU fans.

I will always want Pitt in the B1G, but until that happens, I couldn't be happier with UMD and Rutgers. It's going to help make this region feel "connected" again, college sports-wise. I'm happy that these two schools will be our rivals, with Ohio State and Nebraska already in the bag.

ND/Cuse at Met Life might be well watched and attended as well.