November 28th, 2012 at 10:41 AM ^

That's exactly what UVa fans said... and look what happened.  The ACC is very comparable to the B1G academically and they've accepted UofL, what makes you think the B1G wouldn't stoop in the future (granted we're on more stable ground), especially if a school presented "a bigger footprint for the BTN".  $ > Academics


November 28th, 2012 at 1:13 PM ^

As far as I can tell, AAU membership is REALLY important to the B1G.  Clemson, NC State, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Florida State and soon-to-be member Syracuse might be fine universities (certainly better than Louisville), but they are not AAU members.   I think the only one of the B1G 14 not in there is Nebraska, which was a recent removal.

I do agree $ > than academics, but the $ portion for Louisville would not be that great. It doesn't add a big TV market for the all-important BTN.  It DOES add an excellent b-ball program and a good football team (certainly both better than UMD and Rutgers), but the B1G has shown they really don't care about that, no matter what they say, with their recent expansion. Which is why the B1G expansion is stupid to me, but they don't care about what their fans/alums want, so it doesn't matter.


November 28th, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^

That football program has to keep Strong to stay good long term.  No body believes that will happen, despite the Louisville saying they will pay him the highest salary in the country.  They can say that all they want, but the fact is if a big school like Texas or USC comes calling he is gone.  Kentucky isn't that big of market and the fact is that the Wildcats own it any way.


November 28th, 2012 at 9:05 AM ^

And TV Money. Newscorp owns Fox (And 49% of BTN) and they also just bought the YES Network (FSDetroit, but for New York. They show Knicks, Yankees, etc.)

Newscorp can bundle BTN and YES to cable providers and there's the leverage to get BTN into every home in the NY area. And the cash that comes with it.


November 28th, 2012 at 9:13 AM ^

If this is true, I am further confused as to why Rutgers was a needed piece to get this thing going.  What % of New Yorkers are fans of Rutgers athletics?  2-3%?  I don't see why those 2% of people would be needed when you have ~70% of the market clammoring to watch the Yankees and willing to take the BTN along with YES.  Likewise, I'd be willing to bet there are more Michigan fans in NY than Rutgers, and combined with the rest of the B1G schools with sizeable alumni bases in the area, the argument for Rutgers is further weakened.

Stupid add which I think is going to hurt the brand in the longrun.  Who needs another.... well shit, even Indiana is good at basketball and Minnesota at hockey.... Purdue?  Congrats Delaney, you just added a school which will be the worst athletic school in the B1G, with no academic benefits either!


November 28th, 2012 at 10:12 AM ^

Your comment on more Michigan fans than Rutgers fans in NY is way off.  Rutgers has, by far the largest follwing of college football in the NYC.

About 14% of New Yorkers consider themselves college football fans.  That may seem small, but it's the largest market population wise with almost 3,000,000 people citing they are fans.  Rutgers is, by far the largest share of that group (~21%) or slightly over 600,000.  PSU is next for B10 schools with a share of 6.5% while UM is third with a 5% share.  Add in OSU and they have close to 1,000,000 B10 fans, not enough to get on the basic cable for over 20,000,000 people (about 5%).  Throw in the forced bundle with YES and they can charge more, and you have big bucks for both Fox and the B10 schools.

CommonCensus study

Explanation of Geography and Realignment


November 28th, 2012 at 10:57 AM ^

Even if you look at it from a purely athletic perspective, I still don't know. In football, Louisville has been lucky to have two good coaches use them as a stepping stone. When Petrino was there, they were pretty good, but then he left. They're OK with Charlie Strong, but still not that good, and he'll leave them soon enough. Outside of those two small windows, Louisville is basically Toledo. If Louisville was in the ACC, they'd be struggling to be .500 every year.

Louisville has a very good basketball coach right now, but Maryland has a very strong basketball tradition and a recent National Championship (more recent than any Big Ten team, IIRC).

Point is - if anything, they're a push athletically, but I don't even think that's true. In every other category, it's a blowout. And I'd be much more excited to watch my team play Maryland than Louisville.


November 28th, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^

refuse to look at the upside of these deals rather than just what schools are doing in the immediate present. . . is frustrating. Everyone knows there is good HS football in MD and NJ, but they're rather just narrowly keep slagging the two schools. And I say this as someone who would be AGAINST the expansion if they don't bring in two more schools that complete the equation in solid fashion (NC and UVA being my choices). 


November 28th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^

Louisville has been a much more successful bball program than Marlyand. It's not even that close. Louisville is in the Top 10, all-time, in terms of NCAA tourneys, wins, final fours and winning percentage.

I mean Louisville has 9 Final Fours; Maryland has 2.

In terms of football, it's a wash. They are both very coach-dependent (well, all schools are coach-dependent, but them more than others).

You can certainly get more excited about watching UM play the Terps than Louisville; whatever floats your boat. But Louisville in basketball coming to the B1G would have been humongous in that sport (not that it would have ever happened due to academics and not being a big market).  In terms of history, along with the present & near future, adding UMD is adding a second-tier player in basketball (behind MSU, UM, OSU and IU, at least).


November 28th, 2012 at 9:01 AM ^

I try my best to follow NCAA sports but I am totally lost now as to who is in what conference for the secondary schools that I don't care as much about (i.e. anyone not in the Big Ten, Big 12, Pac 12, or SEC).  Between the switching and the switching back and everything else, I am totally lost.  I think I'll just wait until we have 4 16 team superconferences and then I'll bother relearning all of the affiliations.


November 28th, 2012 at 9:19 AM ^

"But multiple sources said the conference is comfortable with Louisville because the ACC is too strong academically to have its reputation significantly altered by one new member." - from the Yahoo! article on the move

I think this might be a polite way for the ACC to say, "We added Louisville because people will actually watch and/or attend Louisville athletics events."

Nonetheless, I cannot wait for the Big East to counter with a move to add Brigham Young, UNLV, FIU, tanning beds and a drive-thru pharmacy.




November 28th, 2012 at 9:45 AM ^

so if this trend continues is the Big East going to have to surrender it's status as a BCS conference in order to let a stronger conference in... like the MAC


November 28th, 2012 at 9:56 AM ^

Louisville is a commuter school.  Academically, it's way, way, way, way below every other school in the ACC, even ClemPson.

So this move is strictly, 100% about football and basketball.  There is absolutely no other way that the high-brow academic heavyweights in the ACC would ever associate with academic drivel like Louisville.

Yet more confirmation of what this is really ALL about.

SRSLY, maybe Mexico's UNAM has it right.  That's the major public university in Mexico City.  It has a professional soccer team, which plays in Mexico's top-flight team.  But the players aren't students; they are professional players, like every other pro soccer player in Mexico's top league, it's just that the team happens to be owned by the university.

Frankly, that's where D-1 should head.  Let's stop pretending this has anything to do with "student athletes."  I'm growing so sick of this BS that academic institutions spin out, all in the name of chasing the almighty dollar.


November 28th, 2012 at 2:16 PM ^

I still don't see why "commuter school" is supposed to be an insult or a reflection of academic quality. It's a reflection on the makeup of the student body, perhaps, in that they mostly live off campus. And many if not most of them are mediocre to poor schools, but that doesn't necessarily reflect on the nature of the university itself. UL isn't a poor school because it's a commuter school, it's a poor school because it doesn't offer an education on par with top end institutions. 



November 28th, 2012 at 10:07 AM ^

So, after all of the posturing is finished, the ACC will still have the same number of teams, but will be $50 million richer from Maryland's buyout fee.

I wish I could find a job like this.  I would "work" at least once a year.


November 28th, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^

They won't ever see the full 50 million.  Losing the Under Armour guy also isn't a positive for the ACC either.  Don't think the Pac12 isn't thrilled to have Knight bankrolling Oregon


November 28th, 2012 at 11:24 AM ^

I doubt Plank cashing in all that stock the around the time Maryland decided they were leaving the ACC was a coincidence.  He obviously wanted them in the BIg10.  He won't bankroll them like Knight does (but other then Pickens at Ok St. who does), but based on the fact that he is obviously funding some/ all of the buyout I'd expect him to become more involved. 

His Dudeness

November 28th, 2012 at 10:08 AM ^

As a current resident of Louisville I could not be more excited. Unless of course things worked out perfectly and UofL joined the B1G... we were that close. Delany is a MORANS.