Truth to ACC rumor??
by jaygamble (2013-02-19 14:14:52)
[ cannot delete ]   [ Edit ]   [ Return to Cartier Field ]   [ Show All Thread ]   [ Ignore Poster ]   [ Report Post ]   [ Highlight Poster ]   [ Reply ]

 



VT, UVA, and NC gone to Big 10?? Maybe GTech?


I was wondering when this board would notice
by tbonesays  (2013-02-19 17:31:07)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It's been a daily soap opera on shaggybeaver, where the moderatation is between slim and nonexistant. The consensus is ACC teams have to wait to see what the courts rule on Maryland's $50 million exit fee.


Georgia Tech is already in the B1G. They're called Purdue. *
by Nohow  (2013-02-19 17:13:13)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


My Texas friends at ND used to refer to Purdue as
by Tex Francisco  (2013-02-19 17:25:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

the Aggies of the Big Ten.


As in, "Don't step in the Par-doo?" *
by slats  (2013-02-19 17:57:37)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Haven't we posted this every two weeks for the last 3 months
by DakotaDomer  (2013-02-19 15:43:58)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There's certainly attempts at making this happen going on. But every other week it seems like Twitter blows up with this for 2 hours and then nothing. A couple have stated an announcement was coming Monday morning.


Yes...see 1/20 report UVA to B1G by Monday 1/21
by steelhop  (2013-02-19 17:05:27)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Ummm...this didn't happen.


All of us haven't had our turn to post it. Fair is fair. *
by BacTien  (2013-02-19 15:52:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Okay, Billy Jean. That's enough out of you.
by cujays96  (2013-02-19 16:15:52)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Delany is pathetic
by gordonbombay  (2013-02-19 15:08:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It's beyond transparent that he's trying to nuke the ACC to 'get' Notre Dame. There is no other reason to add filler like UNC and Virginia, neither of which bring much in TV money.


UNC is far from "filler."
by undfan211  (2013-02-19 15:36:15)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The state of North Carolina offers TV markets, decent high school football (better than most of the Big Ten's footprint), and good basketball to boot.


And I can't imagine UNC leaving without Duke *
by MNG  (2013-02-19 15:38:10)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


UNC is politically tethered to NC State
by ShermanOaksND  (2013-02-19 21:10:41)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There's very little plausible about the notion of North Carolina going to the Big Ten.


I can't imagine TAMU leaving Texas
by DakotaDomer  (2013-02-19 15:44:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

TAMU's success might convince some idiot UNC administrators.


Actually, quite the opposite
by bengalbout  (2013-02-19 16:41:34)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Think of it this way:
A&M/Texas: Divorced couple
UNC/Duke : Happy twin brothers


Are they still twins?
by DakotaDomer  (2013-02-19 20:38:05)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Their football programs don't represent each other at all. In basketball Duke and Coach K are a much bigger program right now and I think the same is true in WBB.

As schools they've never had more than a zip code in common


I think he's trying to do a couple of things
by MNG  (2013-02-19 15:33:54)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

1- Add football rich high school talent within the footprint of the Big Ten

2- Feed the monster that is the Big Ten Network

3- As you say, break ND and force them into the Big Ten.


Demographics are destiny
by Tex Francisco  (2013-02-19 15:50:59)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Population growth from 1970 to 2010 (in millions)

PA 11.8 to 12.7 (+7.6%)
MI 8.9 to 9.9 (+11.2%)
OH 10.7 to 11.5 (+7.5%)
VA 4.6 to 8.0 (+73.9%)
NC 5.0 to 9.5 (+90.0%
GA 4.6 to 9.7 (+110.9%)

I'm not sure Delany fully appreciates the direction media is heading, but he does seem to have some appreciation for the direction U.S. demographics are headed.


Re #2: The BTN is more about bball than football
by fontoknow  (2013-02-19 15:46:51)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Basketball is the inventory that justifies the presence of the BTN on TV sets in Big Ten land throughout the year.

Football is only on 12ish Saturdays a year.

NC would really strengthen that.


the money is in football *
by tbonesays  (2013-02-19 17:27:19)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


not entirely true
by Tex Francisco  (2013-02-19 17:56:42)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The BTN is highly profitable, and it generates a lot of that profit from cable subscriber fees. The best way to maximize cable subscriber fees is to be on basic cable packages in large markets.


Which will likely never happen outside the Mid-west...... *
by Wolfetone  (2013-02-19 21:38:29)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


If BTN didn't have even crappy football, it would not be
by tbonesays  (2013-02-19 19:31:28)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

on anyone's cable. Texas is discovering that their LHN is worthless because it has no football games.


I think it is nearly impossible to compare the BTN with LHN
by fontoknow  (2013-02-20 10:20:30)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

One is a station that has inventory of games from 12 conference members, one is a single team.

While, I agree that football is the straw that stirs the drink in the deals conferences sign with CBS/ABC/ESPN/FOX, I do not think that football is the primary driver in these conference networks.


The LHN is worthless because UT vastly over estimated
by Tex Francisco  (2013-02-19 20:40:49)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

people's interest in UT. With 8 pro teams and a half dozen other schools playing major D1 football, there's a lot of competition for the Texas sports fan, and I think UT greatly overestimated their pull.


Football is also 3rd selection games and below...
by iudomer  (2013-02-19 15:55:32)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

After ABC/ESPN, BTN gets the scraps.


Same reason the B1G hockey league was established *
by fontoknow  (2013-02-19 16:05:55)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Lacrosse would give them more filler
by Groundhog  (2013-02-19 17:57:07)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

UVa and UNC both have programs.


This is all about the TV bubble
by dcorreal  (2013-02-19 15:30:36)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

It will collapse, TV will become a la carte, and the Big 10 will be stuck with low revenue football programs who will take an equal share. In the meantime, rivalries are destroyed and nonsensical matchups are created


TV won't be a la carte any time soon. *
by tcob  (2013-02-20 11:43:01)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


UNC and UVA and GT also happen to be top academic schools
by ACross  (2013-02-19 22:33:55)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I can se why the academicians at Bog 10 schools would find his appealing.

And the more ridiculous realignment gets, the likelier it is in the long run that the who.e thi g comes crashing down.

A la carte cable, Alabama's spending binge, ESpN's monopolisitc behavior, and this balls-in revenue whoring by the athletic directors might combine to cause colleges to dream it all up again.

Delanty is a bad guy.


A la carte TV won't break sports on TV *
by atthedome  (2013-02-19 18:42:52)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


a la carte would be a disaster for the BTN
by brnd  (2013-02-20 00:32:38)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

The ratings are likely so bad that they don't release them.

Their model is all about forcing a channel on the 98%+ of people that have no interest in it.


How many
by Dcorreal  (2013-02-19 21:32:47)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

In the tristate area that will be forced to pay for the big 10 network because of Rutgers actually wants the channel? Once cable goes a la carte, all of that revenue and the entire premise delaney's ambitious plans are based on are gone. It is an unsustainable business model, he is relying on a small obsessive college football fan base forcing it upon the masses. He is buying up tv markets, not real demand like an nd would bring


He is buying areas but not eyeballs.....
by Wolfetone  (2013-02-19 21:59:00)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I have watched one "event" on BTN in three years.
A few years ago I watched an ND hockey game at Michigan
on BTN.....Nobody at the bar has ever said,"I'm
going home and am watching the game on BTN tonight"
either.It just showed up on TWC one day on ch.472.
I spin through the channels every six months just to
see what new channels have been added and came across
it. 472 is a long way from basic and I can assure
you that at least in NYC you will never see it on
basic.....It took 20 years for WGN to be added at
ch. 162 on TWC last year.....


No, but it will break the guaranteed money...
by irishinthed  (2013-02-19 20:24:40)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

From subscription fees.


Is the long game control of college athletics?
by Mr Wednesday  (2013-02-19 16:46:48)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Is Delaney trying to outflank the entire NCAA and position himself to be running the show?

It makes more sense than some bizarre quixotic fixation on ND.


Nebraska v. Rutgers
by Vairish84  (2013-02-19 16:33:21)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

as a conference game is not nonsensical, it is parody. It is bad enough in football, but for the nonrevenue sports, it is ridiculous.

Most people in New Jersey couldn't find Nebraska on a map, and I would imagine that is true of the Rutgers football team.


It's amazing but Rutgers .....
by Wolfetone  (2013-02-19 19:05:27)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Hasn't made the NCAA tournament once since joining
the BE.....not likely to do much better in BiG....


These are the same guys that broke MD to Big 10
by ryND  (2013-02-19 14:20:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Jeff Ermann ‏@insidemdsports
UNC? Real life, I believe. RT@NYTerp1413 is it a real offer or just a school on the accepted list...

Jeff Ermann ‏@insidemdsports
I'm speaking out of turn, but I'd say the Big 10 likely views GT and UVA as 8s ... And UNC as Kate Upton. Heels are the apocalyptic domino.

Jeff Ermann ‏@insidemdsports
Not sure. But it's churning. RT@mjotwits Anyone else reporting these schools possibly joining Big 10? Big 10 kept things quiet with MD & Rut


Maybe I am missing something but that website's owners
by steelhop  (2013-02-19 16:59:36)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

all have connections to MD...so it isn't surprising in the least they could break the story ...where would their inside knowledge come from at UNC, VA, Vatech, etc.


That's be 18 teams, seems unlikely. *
by Tex Francisco  (2013-02-19 14:16:50)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


20 would make more sense
by Siddfynch  (2013-02-19 14:36:24)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

With 20 teams you could have four 5-team "pods". You would always play the other four in your pod, and would rotate through the other three pods, playing one each year. The big ten gets their 9th conference game that way. The conference championship would be easy, as the pods that play each other would act as the "division" for that year.

Obviously the issue is some schools might not like only getting a team like Ohio state at home once every six years (or in general only once every three years). But I'm sure the additional tv revenue would keep those complaints down.


20 would make no sense
by sprack  (2013-02-19 22:20:05)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

There is a point where a conference of that size would collapse of its own weight.

A 20 team conference might as well just be 2 conferences.


Leaders. Legends. Followers. Nobodies. *
by IAND75  (2013-02-19 15:42:48)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


I think you repeated losers more than once... *
by VoisMan  (2013-02-20 20:45:26)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Play conference foes once every 6 years at home! *
by undfan211  (2013-02-19 15:00:31)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


Heck, the ACC is there now
by BrianBoru  (2013-02-19 15:46:23)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Each ACC team plays the 6 teams in its division, its protected crossover, and one rotating team from the other division every year. So each ACC team will have 6 conferencemates that it will play each once every 6 years, at home once every 12 years.

Pitt plays FSU at home this year, but won't see the Seminoles again in Pittsburgh until 2025. They'll play in Tallahasee in 2019.

The commissioners will rue expansion someday. It's poisoning the entire college athletics system.


Maybe I'm old fashioned...
by KingDiamond  (2013-02-19 16:07:25)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

But I always thought that the point of conferences was to play teams every year and have meaningful rivalries.

I understand it's all $$$ based now, but at some point with some many teams in a league is it even a conference anymore? It's just one giant group of teams that share some pile of money but don't play each other often.


It's a collective
by Itsdemotime  (2013-02-19 19:37:36)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Delaney is just demonstrating his love of Communism.


why stop at 20? Why not 24?? *
by parietals  (2013-02-19 14:54:38)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


16 makes the most sense
by fontoknow  (2013-02-19 15:08:03)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Especially if one believes a super league of 64 is inevitable.


16 makes no sense
by tf86  (2013-02-22 16:19:06)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

Any conference with more than 12 members for football is too large.

On top of that, there's a basic flaw in your premise: you assume the move toward superconferences is a collaborative approach. In truth, it's a dog-eat-dog scenario. So it's not out of the question that the B1G might go beyond 16, particularly if Delany's approach is to expand the footprint one state at a time, with the ultimate goal being to get to Florida.

If > 16 proves unwieldy for scheduling purposes (for my money, anything > 12 is unwieldy for scheduling purposes, but nobody ever listens to me), don't be surprised to see the B1G drop a program or two, nor would I say that it's automatically only the newbies that are on the potential chopping block. Among existing members, I could see Indiana, Purdue (although not both of them), Illinois and Sparty all potentially on the chopping block, and add Northwestern to that list (as well as the possibility of both Indiana and Purdue going) in the unlikely event we were ever to join the conference.


What is the difference between a 64 team league
by atthedome  (2013-02-19 18:44:02)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

And everyone being independent?


More power and status for those at the big tables.
by Manorcal  (2013-02-19 19:07:22)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

By this, I mean those conference officers and bureaucrats who would control the day-to-day stuff, and who would be personally involved in negotiations with networks, sponsors, venues, etc.

Compared to independence, more is taken care of for university administrators (who seem to enjoy their other duties, anyway); much of the sports stuff is farmed out off-campus.

For higher-ups at conference H.Q., representing dozens of schools gives them more leverage in their contracts with broadcasters. The ability to split off from the N.C.A.A. completely has also been mentioned here.

Having oodles of guaranteed inventory gives broadcasters more leverage with cable distributors, whom they'll press for higher carriage fees.

Sure, there's a limit to how far this can go, but for the individuals who are driving this, there's increased control and status on the line.


Your math does not work.
by Stonebreaker9  (2013-02-19 14:39:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

4 5-team pods would give you 4 pod games, plus one from each other pod would be 3, for a total of 7 games.

A 20-team conference is moronic. But so is the Big 10.


I think he means play all 5 from one pod each year. *
by Tex Francisco  (2013-02-19 14:42:29)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post


This. Should have been more precise in my wording.
by Siddfynch  (2013-02-19 14:50:09)     Delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

And yes. A 20 team conference is moronic. But I think it works better than 18. And at this point the conferences are getting so big what's the difference.


The contents of this post represent the views of the author. NDNation.com is not responsible for its contents.