Didn't ESPN just sign a deal with the ACC for another 10+ years of television coverage? Lol.
well that's just, like, your opinion, man
Didn't ESPN just sign a deal with the ACC for another 10+ years of television coverage? Lol.
Ditto. At this point it's getting to be a part time job to keep up with all this stuff. As long as Michigan is still in the Big Ten (oops is it BI6 or BIG or whatever??).
But then, at the rate things are going, how long will that last?
Before next season there should really be a post on the front page about the final teams in all of the conferences. It's a pool full of pudding with naked midgets in it right now. I have no idea what's going on.
It's a pool full of pudding with naked midgets in it right now.
Epic metaphor. You sir, have won the Internet.
If you don't know what to do with a pool full of naked pudding midgets, then sir, I feel deeply sorry for you.
I live in the DC area. People care much more about Maryland than Virginia. That's just how it is. It's hard to find much UVA coverage.
But I would be happy with either. They advance Delaney's goal of expanding the B1G footprint into areas of the country that are growing markets - Metro DC and the VA Tidewater areas - without being way off the map like Atlanta or Austin.
I would take both. Both are good schools academically. ND is never coming, they will go to a conference in which they are the big fish.
I'm concerned that taking either would weaken the Big Ten's midwestern ethos.
ND to the MAC then.
I live in the area too; I'm not sure it was Edsall losing his mind or what, but excluding the UnderArmor uniform dress-up game, Maryland athletics seems to be a non-entity. I work/live in Howard County tho, not NoVa...
Selfishly, I would want Maryland due to proximity.
I think Delaney's best case would be ND and one of either UVa or UMd.
Eh md football is only big when winning, between the redskins and ravens a lot of people don't have football money to spend on going to a small time football program. However in terms of ratings and bringing the market MD is better than UVA, especially if you look beyond football and into basketball. But UMD brings Nova DC and baltimore in tv market where as UVA at best brings nova and dc and doesn't even really bring dc.
I was reading the Yahoo! Sports (I know, terrible source) article on this happening yesterday, and one of the justifications Florida State used for a potential leave from the ACC is that it would be "hard to bring fans to the Panhandle from such faraway locations as Syracuse and Pitt". But if they were to go to the Big 12, then... they would have just as hard of a time with Oklahoma, Ok St, Iowa St, etc.
But really this boils down to the fact that the ESPN deal doesn't add MORE money to the conference.
Think about it, though - you're televising your top games nationally, and that attracts media attention and fans. Not to mention, since ESPN has the broadcast rights to the ACC, they're going to talk it up a bit more too. Given the fact that the conference's prestige will undoubtedly increase due to more media exposure, I believe that they all stand to benefit greatly in the long run. This is all in the face of a deal that doesn't cause any of the athletic departments to LOSE any money.
Also, no, the Big 10 is fine where it is. No crappy ACC teams please.
I'd expect ND to join a watered down ACC where they could come in and compete.
I think you overestimate their chances
was May 13. Genius at work.
I love how you don't oversell the idea on a conference bringing in some TV market just because a school is close to one. As the NYT estimated, Rutgers does have viewership in the NYC area but the viewership is nowhere near what it is in big southern or midwestern cities. Besides, adding a school for TV markets is a terrible reason to change the conference (though it seems like that is what is driving it).
Virginia does seem like a good fit to me. From the article above, their fan base is estimated at around 835k which would put them below the conference median but they also have great academics and facilities in a very nice setting. It has a rich history and while their football and basketball would probably put them in the middle of the pack, their soccer, lacrosse, and baseball are very good. I would also argue that their basketball and football are getting better.
As for other schools, Notre Dame seems to make sense but they are stubborn. Texas will not happen. The SEC is just trying to get numbers so they probably won't want teams like Clemson or Georgia Tech. That said, I have come around to the idea of Georgia Tech joining the B1G. It seems kind of strange geographically but Atlanta is 709 miles from Ann Arbor. Minneapolis is 650. Yes, those are both midwestern states but Atlanta is not 100% a southern city. There are a lot of transplants here from the northeast and midwest.
Their fan base is nowhere near as passionate as Michigan or Nebraska fans. I would compare them to Purdue. They have a new basketball arena on the way and their football stadium opens up into the Atlanta skyline. They are very good academically and have a lot of foreign-born students. Plus, they are in a city with a very cheap cost to travel to. Flights to Atlanta from DTW or ORD are very cheap and hotels are inexpensive.
That UVA is not going anywhere without VaTech.
VaTech repeatedly tried to get in to the ACC during the 60's and 70's but was turned down every time. Virginia lobbied heavily to get them an invite in 2003.
And I actually thought UVA was one of the main opponents to VaTech joining the ACC
The original plan in '03 was to invite Syracuse instead of VaTech. Syracuse's then-AD claims that the ACC actually extended them a formal invitation and then revoked it. Apparently, the governor of Virginia and the UVA president lobbied the other ACC schools behind the scenes to get VaTech an invite, with UVA threatening to withdraw from the conference if VaTech wasn't invited.
With a healthy dose of Mark Warner and the VA legislature threatening funding cuts to UVA if we didn't support VT's entry to the ACC. John Casteen was supportive, but the truth is it was mostly a government initiative.
I don't see anything happening, FSU is just using these rumors to leverage money. Being spring sports can't travel by air it would be the stupidest thing that they could do. I'm confident that the big schools are done moving for a while. The only thing you'll see is the mountain west and conference usa refeeling there slots and the wac finally taking the bullet to the back of the head.
B1G has parts of the NY market, mostly us and PSU, but not all.
Notre Dame has parts of the NY market, but not all.
Rutgers has 3 times as much fans in NY than the B1G or Notre Dame combined, but not all.
However, if Delany could rope the above 3 together, he COULD make a decent case for NY, imo. When you're talking about the largest media market in the world, where even a small chunk of a pro sports town is a huge amount of money, adding Rutgers may be worth it.
I'm not a New Yorker / from Jersey, but I have family there. I think the statement "Rutgers has 3 times as much fans in NY" might be a littttle misleading... does Rutgers really have any real fans? I can't say I've ever seen/met a Rutgers fan not in NJ and it has been established in the past that NYC just isn't a college sports town (outside of alum fans from big time schools).
Plus, everything I've ever heard about Rutgers has been... bad. No offense to any fans out there, but what would Rutgers add besides teams to get stomped and a financial failure in the athletic department? I'd take Maryland/UVa/ND/GT anyday over Rutgers.
I think the statement "Rutgers has 3 times as much fans in NY" might be a littttle misleading... does Rutgers really have any real fans? I can't say I've ever seen/met a Rutgers fan not in NJ and it has been established in the past that NYC just isn't a college sports town (outside of alum fans from big time schools).
Plus, everything I've ever heard about Rutgers has been... bad. No offense to any fans out there, but what would Rutgers add besides teams to get stomped and a huge financial failure in the athletic department? I'd take Maryland/UVa/ND/GT any day over Rutgers.
Here's the link to an article that polled New Yorkers, by the New York Times. Rutgers has an estimated 600,000 fans, while ND is second with 250,000. So I guess my numbers were a bit off.
Rutgers isn't the sexiest name, but they do have some good things going for them:
Mike Hart is from NY state near Syracuse, not NJ
From a Mid-western guy, NJ-NY same same.
Well, Syracuse is about a 5 hour drive to Rutgers with good traffic. They aren't exactly close or the same, unless you consider Ann Arbor and Pittsburgh the same.
I was really trying to be humorous but it is Monday morning and it just came off flat.
It's OK. I live about an hour from Syracuse and it annoys me when people compare upstate NY to NYC/NJ. I can't stand NJ. You hit a nerve is all.
The big problem is that rutgers fans represent 3% of the population in new york, you aren't getting the big network on basic cable because of 3% of the population and that is where the money that makes it worth it would come from. If rutgers can't gaurantee the big network on basic cable its not worth the invite.
Exactly, U of Pittsburgh probably has about 600,000 fans in the Pittsburgh area (metro population is probably around 1.5 mil), but I never heard anyone screaming that the BIG10 should make sure to dominate the Pittsburgh market by adding the Panthers (granted PSU dominates). You'd be adding about the same number of fans to the Big 10, adding a more respected/historic program, and essentially securing PA recruits to the Big 10 (W. Pa / Pittsburgh seem to be the hotbeds in the state).
money has absolutely ruined D1 athletics.
In what way? It's obnoxious that teams are moving around, in particular the end of the Texas A&M vs Texas rivalry, but I'm willing to accept even the irritating changes in exchange for being able to watch every Michigan and otherwise relevant game on TV each week. We can't have everything we want and I'm willing to accept the former in exchange for the later.
It certainly isn't anything new, and I think looking back over the last several decades you can make a case that the movement was beneficial on the whole. There has to be some way to re-distribute the teams as the balance of power changes--does anyone wish Miami and Florida State were still minor independents, or that Houston, Rice and SMU were taking up spaces in Texas's conference and Oklahoma wasn't?
We go through this every couple of decades; I think it's unavoidable.
I think you're absolutely right, but that doesn't mean we can't hate the latest round of it. This is the first round of conference realignment that has tossed geography aside as a determination of conference affiliation.
Probably, originally, it was as travel got easier, but it's continued.
The SWC had a very narrow geographic footprint and there was much lamentation when the Texas schools got split into two tiers. The ACC went from a narrow Maryland -> South Carolina focus to encompassing the whole atlantic seaboard and even one school on the gulf. The Big East went from being a Bos-Wash basketball conference to covering the whole eastern 1/3 of the US. All of that happened well before the current round.
If travel costs aren't material schools won't worry much about geography and they'll find their competitive/philosophical peers. If travel costs ever start to matter again, like they do for most schools in D3 and NAIA ball, you'll see this reversed.
The difference is that when the ACC expanded in 2005, or when the SWC disintegrated, they were generally just natural extensions of existing geography. (Keeping in mind that Syracuse was originally supposed to be part of the ACC expansion, so BC wasn't supposed to be so isolated.) What went on then was nothing like West Virginia playing in a southwestern conference or SDSU and Boise playing in an eastern one.
University Presidents have ruined college athletics. It needs to go back to having a faculty board in control of athletics.
Geographically that would make more sense to add these schools. Plus it would boost basketball and probably make the big ten the best basketball conference.
The only thing that can stop all this lunacy is an ever-expanding national playoff that includes as many teams as possible. Schools are doing this only because they feel so much pressure to maximize their regular season dollar and to keep well-aligned in the post-season evolutions that are taking place.
A real system would provide the money and the necessary auto bids to keep schools from doing this silly moving around. Conferences could then remain what they were supposed to be: regional, based on natural proximity, and similar academic values.
It will happen some day because the tv money for like a 16 team format will be so mind-blowing.
Can we please just stop screwing with the B1G? I really like it the way it is; it's a distinctly midwestern conference, along with PSU, which is a great fit academically, athletically, and (until recently) culturally. I could care less about bringing in money for the conference; I'd rather see a conference I can cheer for than a conference that kicks lots of money back to the schools.
It's interesting how the Big XII is already slowly moving east and the Big East is moving west. I am guessing that, if the current trend continues, the two conferences will pass one another on I-70 outside of Indianapolis in their efforts to lose further regional focus.
There's also this:
"On the other hand, it will do very little for schools with a more traditional football following like FSU, Clemson, Virginia Tech and Miami." - from the article
In the long run, however, I don't think this holds entirely - your conference in general gets a little boost in publicity with the deal, so eventually the efforts will pay off for other programs as well, although I am not sure it would be enough to satisfy Haggard. More potential revenue streams exist than just the TV deal, and what you don't see here you might see in other areas.
I would be curious as to what Haggard believes the Big XII can offer FSU, other than perhaps a media deal more suitable to him, because in itself this is quite frankly a horrible reason to make such a switch. Further, contrary to what he claims, being in a certain conference can very much boost at least the perception of your academics, so really, being in the ACC doesn't exactly hurt them in this regard.
Actually, I do care. I know this is going to open up the floodgates of Charlie Weis jokes but I think the best fits to add two more are Kansas and Notre Dame. Kansas would solidify B10 as best in basketball and ND's intangibles (if not their recent performance) would put us a notch above the SEC in football. That has to have something positive to do with ratings and cable networks doesn't it?
If we add teams, I want teams with good LAX programs. I'm excited about Big Ten LAX.
UVA is good in lacrosse right?
I'm not sure if you're joking or not. They won the national championship last year, and they're the 5th seeded team in the tourney this year. They're quite good.
I'm not much of an lacrosse fan but I noticed UVA, Duke, John Hopkins, UNC, & Syracuse are normally pretty good. I was just seeking clarification.
Yeah, I thought that might be the case. The teams you named plus Maryland, Cornell and Princeton are probably the top lax teams in the country. I'd include ND and Denver as of late.
If we took Maryland, then Stefon Diggs would have to walk on to transfer here.
im so sick of conference expansion, we let Nebraska in and i was totally fine with that, but no more, more than 12 teams is too much.
it causes the conference to drop the Leaders and Legends names.
i think UVA, GT, UM would be good fits if we had to add....maybe rutgers or syracuse.
I think size and geographically and competitive-wise, ND should look to join the OTHER midwest conference....send them to the MAC. Maybe navy could join with them and they can keep their rivalry alive.
I would be embarassed if we ever diluted our brand name with such weak additions as Virginia, Georgia Tech, Rutgers, or Syracuse (not to mention the fact that UVA and GT would be geographic outliers).
Notre Dame has sucked for so long that I don't want them anymore. To hell with ND, they're a joke.
I don't even care about notre dame. I just want us 12 to sit here and be calm and just chill for a few decades. FBS football is like a bunch of cliquey girls now. Whenever someone gets hurt or doesn't feel like somethings fair they want to go to the other group that's nicer to them and tell's them that they're special. And frankly, FBS feels less and less stable everytime another team bails
The Big Ten is the only conference that has the luxury of doing whatever it wants. And the best thing for us right now is to do absolutely nothing. Nebraska was an excellent addition to the conference, but beyond that, 12 is the ideal number. Nobody gives a shit about Notre Dame anymore. I think the Big Ten should monitor the landscape from atop its pile of money while the rest of these weak leagues bicker over pennies. It's times like this that I genuinely appreciate Jim Delany.
I would much rather see FSU join the SEC. As far as the B1G goes, no watering down please!!
A mega big ten were to happen, I hope to see the logo and names scrapped. Sign an advertisement deal with McDonalds and call it "The Big Mac" (mid American conference, clearly)
FSU pisses me off. The ACC bent over backwards to keep the Florida schools happy after the last round of expansion. That embarrassing picture of an empty ACCCG is because the ACC put the game in Florida to accommodate the Florida schools. The ACC extended a middle finger to traditionalists in order to footballize the conference, in no small part in order to keep FSU happy. The conference was counting, of course, on continued FSU national supremacy. And how is the conference repaid by Florida State? Cheating scandals, football mediocrity, and now Texas-esque whining about third-tier media rights. Fuck them. I hope they stay, but fuck them.
Bringing in UVA would not capture the Baltimore/DC market unless you're going after the lacrosse team which probably has a bigger following than the football team...same with Maryland. Not every DMA can be sold on every sport.
Having said that, if you're looking to "capture" the Bmore/DC college football market your best bet would be VaTech (just from personal observation).
Frank The Tank makes a reasonable argument that the ACC is more stable than conventional wisdom suggests:
Frank has been fun to read on the conference stuff but while he makes some good arguments, to date, I don't think his track record of what will happen is very good.
Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Maryland just water down the brand. They're decent fits, but they're not compelling in any way. They don't add a lot in terms of markets or quality of football or basketball. They're just more mouths to feed and screw with us geographically. They make no sense.
I'm not saying any school adds it but number wise baltimore/dc is the 4th largest media market in the country, thats not nothing
College football is less about media markets and more about fan bases. The largest-revenue teams in the country are from the Big Ten and SEC, and at least in the SEC's case you aren't going to see many big media markets. People in big cities watch whoever's good; put on LSU-Alabama and people in New York will be watching that. They don't give a damn about Rutgers and UConn.
I like us at 12, but if conference realignment is going to happen, here's what I see/would like:
I see FSU and VT going to the Big 12 soon. ACC either stays at 12 or picks up UConn and Louisville to compensate. Big East picks up a few more C-USA teams.
ND finally capitulates and joins the B1G. I think we can steal Missouri from the SEC if this happens; they clearly want to be in the B1G, and accepted an SEC invitation as a backup. They'd fit really well, especially with Nebraska and Illinois. Boost to both football and basketball. I'd be really hesitant to move beyond 14, even for UVA.