CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on September 16, 2018, 08:16:39 PM
-
For realsies....
Non-B10 AAU members with FBS football:
Duke
GA Tech
Iowa St
Rice
Stanford
Texas A&M
Tulane
Arizona
Buffalo
Cal
UCLA
Colorado
Florida
Kansas
Missouri
North Carolina
Oregon
Pitt
USC
Texas
Virginia
Washington
Vanderbilt
I've been told that's important, so who would you honestly take?
-
Notre Dame.
Then beef up the B1G West with Oklahoma and Texas, sliding Purdue into the B1G East.
-
Gators.
-
Realistically.
Or do you not believe Rutgers can underachieve its way out of the conference? If they're unable to win more than one P5 game a year for the next 10 years, they're still safe?
-
You should probably be more worried about your Gators winning more than one P5 game per season for the next ten years.
Unlike Florida, Rutgers has already demonstrated the ability to beat Michigan.
-
Wow, a perfectly banal thread...2 dick hole replies.
-
Both by the OP.
-
VTech always liked the Hokies
-
Realistically.
Or do you not believe Rutgers can underachieve its way out of the conference? If they're unable to win more than one P5 game a year for the next 10 years, they're still safe?
If we're talking realistically, you're really just saying, which conference eats it first between the Pac-12 and Big 12 and figure out who you want. In truth, underachieving hasn't driven the old guard out of a power conference, so I imagine it would need to be institutional failure that does it.
-
For realsies....
SEC is the only conference without an exit clause. If the B1G is going to move a team the easiest would be from the SEC.
Missouri doesn't seem all that happy and just 5 short years ago was begging to be let into the B1G.
As long as cable contracts are set up as so, Rutgers is safe. A decade from now with the 50+ million a year, if they can't improve their lot (and I'm not talking football here, even though that is the most visible,) then maybe a discussion can be had about a replacement.
-
Florida, Vandy and Missouri would round out my top, selfish choices, in that order.
-
Florida, Vandy and Missouri would round out my top, selfish choices, in that order.
Lack of obsession, noted. :)
I don't think it's realistic that a P5 conference would kick out a member for anything other than institutional failure, as bay area badge pointed out.
-
Granted it was BCS 6, rather than Power 5, but didn't the Big East kick out Temple for performance?
-
Florida, Vandy and Missouri would round out my top, selfish choices, in that order.
Florida would be a boon for the Big Ten. Tremendous academic and athletic package. I'm sure that if they could be convinced to leave the SEC for the B1G, they'll most certainly want a traveling partner or two. Georgia Tech would certainly be on the short list. Maybe even UGA, but I don't think they'd be nearly as easy to convince (and GT and UF are hardly easy gets either).
I think cultural differences can be overcome (PA/NJ/MD are as different from IA/WI/IL as FL/GA/NC are), but I'm not sure how keen the UF/GT/UGA brass would be about having to come up North at least twice a November to play football. At least if a hypothetical Southern team wins the B1G East, they can play indoors in December.
-
Florida and Vandy would be good fits. Florida is good for those of us who will be/are living down there in the future/now. Vandy is in Nashville. Enough said.
-
Realistically
Missouri.
They were begging to get in back in 2010.
They are a cultural fit.
They are the only FBS school in a state with 6M people.
They provide a geographic bridge to Oklahoma and then Texas.
Decent football and basketball history. Not great.
Good academics. Not great, but good enough.
Should have grabbed them in last realignment.
-
Granted it was BCS 6, rather than Power 5, but didn't the Big East kick out Temple for performance?
They did, but the Owls were a football only member. They also brought them back, once the feces hit the fan.
-
Realistically
Missouri.
They were begging to get in back in 2010.
They are a cultural fit.
They are the only FBS school in a state with 6M people.
They provide a geographic bridge to Oklahoma and then Texas.
Decent football and basketball history. Not great.
Good academics. Not great, but good enough.
Should have grabbed them in last realignment.
I also am in the Mizzou to the Big Ten Camp. But just to offer a counter point:
The last round of expansion focused hard on TV markets and growth rate. And unfortunately for Missouri, they are not growing that fast and "1/2" of their TV market is already in the Big Ten Footprint. They are definitely better than Rutgers in every Metric except for those 2 previously mentioned.
-
I don't think it's realistic to think Rutgers would be replaced until the BTN is no longer a viable basic cable TV channel
could you find a replacement that would bring more TVs and therefore more revenue than Rutgers? Sure, but Rutgers is bringing in what they were added for.
Now if the Comcast thing had blown up.............?
-
I had Temple in mind with this....
So if Rutgers goes on a run like N'Western did in the late 70s to early 80s, they'd be safely entrenched in the B10 because of the TV deal? We all know that's a bubble, though. We're about 2 inches from a la cart TV viewing/monies.
But hypothetically, if Rutgers were to be given the boot for whatever reason, the B10 would still have Maryland, out there by itself. Would VT or UVa not pair up with them well?
-
time for my public service message denouncing any form of conference realignment talk, no matter the motives or nobility of the posters. I think I'd rather debate Pete Rose HOF consideration for 4,256th time.
-
FWIW, I don't think the next step is a la cart on a channel basis per se, but more of these grouped streaming services. The Fox Sports streaming service may bring you NFC Football, MLB, Big Ten and Pac XII coverage.
The other forms of TV entertainment are already moving in that direction. The issue is their ad revenue has dried up due to the lack of targeted demos watching their programming live. That epidemic hasn't, and for obvious reasons won't hit sports. The issue is when live sports are the only draw left on cable, that's not enough to support a whole system.
-
Has there been a hierarchical realignment discussion before? The idea of Texas in the B10 or Florida in the B10 made me think of it. It's not something I'd ever considered before.
I've seen discussion of a relegation system like in soccer, but between FBS and FCS. But a top-tier "kings" conference, then the next tier down, and so on.
What would that postseason look like in such a structure?
-
it could take the Feds a couple decades to move 2 inches on a la carte TV viewing
Rutgers was not brought into the conference because of their performance on the field
if Rutgers goes, Maryland would have Penn State to pair up with.
-
An Ohio State would communicate with other, current top-tier schools and make an elite conference - Alabama, Clemson, etc.
But in that case, would an OSU insist on bringing their rival on board, to keep that game 'major', or would differentiating themselves as a "higher up" give them a leg-up on their competition? Would an OSU bring Michigan with it, and Auburn with Bama, etc, or would they leave them behind?
-
I do love bitching about a topic in which you clicked the thread to view. Brilliant.
-
I don't have to stay away from it merely because I don't share the enthusiasm for yet another wrinkle to the topic. What's the internet for anyways except for pot shots, and trolling (cat videos and porn of course)?
-
I am not advocating Big Ten expansion.
The Big Ten would expand if Notre Dame says they are ready to advance.
Notre Dame will be reluctant to come in because it means giving up their traditional rivals, especially Stanford and USC in favor of a 9 to 10-game conference schedule. The thing that will convince Notre Dame is if they don't get into the CFB Playoff, once or twice and have the belief belief P-5 teams are favored by the committee over independents.
If that happens ND has to decide between the ACC and Big Ten. ND might get by with more self-interest in the ACC. But the Big ten is closer, and those minor sports are costly for a small school to maintain.
Geographically Notre Dame fits in either division, but adding a them to the Western Division makes more sense to make that division more competitive. You could realign divisions putting Purdue in the East (with Indiana), and then select Missouri or Iowa State for the West. Obviously Missouri makes more sense to those caring about monetizing the Big Ten. I'd prefer for selfish reasons to get Iowa State off Iowa's nonconference schedule. I wouldn't mind if Iowa State were in the Big Ten. Its enrollment is now larger than Iowa's. Its football and basketball facilities are very good.
With Notre Dame in the west you could also leave Purdue in the West and select an Eastern school.
I think Texas was interested at one time. I think that ship sailed. They sort of are like Notre Dame -- they want to be independent, and in a conference, and in the Big Ten, that just won't work. It is a strong conference; it is not every man for himself.
-
Kansas and Missouri for the last two in.
-
This would have been a better off season topic then all those stupid "best player to wear number 78" threads.
-
Has there been a hierarchical realignment discussion before? The idea of Texas in the B10 or Florida in the B10 made me think of it. It's not something I'd ever considered before.
I've seen discussion of a relegation system like in soccer, but between FBS and FCS. But a top-tier "kings" conference, then the next tier down, and so on.
What would that postseason look like in such a structure?
I don't think that would work well at all. Too much is in flux.
-
I don't think it's realistic to believe that Rutgers would get kicked out, I think it's a lot more realistic to think that the B1G just expands to compensate for the pick. Here are some thoughts I have on the topic:
I think and eight team playoff is coming, that's unavoidable. When it happens, I think they'll give the top 4/5 seeds to winners of the P4/5 CCG's to protect the regular seasons and make CCG's matter.
My preference would be to stick to 14 or go all the way to 20. I don't think 16 works particularly well for scheduling purposes - you either have to go two divisions of eight, which means with nine conference games (and no protected crossovers) it takes eight years to complete a home and home with all the schools in the conference. Or, you could go to four divisions of four (i.e. "pods") and rotate the schedule, but with nine conference games, managing those crossover match ups could become really messy. Additionally, in either scenario, you still have the possibility of a rematch in the CCG, which I absolutely hate.
A 20 school conference w/ a divisional setup based on geography/rivalries makes for the best option in my opinion. Of course, expansion to 20 would probably require a home run on revenue generating additions in order for the numbers to make sense. Here's one scenario where I think that could work if everything broke right (divisional names are subject to change ;)):
Great Plains Division
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Iowa
Minnesota
Illinois
Great Lakes Division
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Indiana
Purdue
Northeast Division
Penn State
Notre Dame
Northwestern
Rutgers
Maryland
Southwest Division
Texas
Oklahoma
Texas A&M
Missouri
Kansas
If we just assume for a second this could be possible (a big assumption, I realize), I think this kind of setup offers a type of best case scenario if the B1G must continue to expand. It would protect most vital rivalries, with the clear exception of the split between Northwestern/Illinois - I split those two to provide maximum exposure to the Chicagoland area for visiting B1G schools, since Chicago is the hub of the B1G. In four of six years, when not on the B1G schedule, perhaps they could schedule that game "OOC" to accommodate for that rivalry.
In this type of scenario, each school would complete a home & home with every school in the other divisions in six years (as opposed to eight years w/ a 16 school conference), and it guarantees no rematches in the CCG. You rotate the divisions yearly and the school with the best record from that "rotation" goes to the CCG. No rematches in the CCG, and easy to follow - you look at your schedule and you have to have a better conference record than those teams to make the CCG.
I think the only super long shots on that list are TAMU & Notre Dame. I think an expanded playoff format that gives preferred seeding to winners of CCG's would force ND into a conference. I think Texas would like the idea of shutting the SEC out of their home state, perhaps the B1G could be a proxy for achieving that goal. TAMU seems pretty happy in the SEC, but Texas would probably want an in state rival to come with them, and the only two AAU schools in Texas are UT & TAMU. I don't see the B1G bringing along TTech/Baylor/TCU/Etc. to accommodate Texas.
-
Yeah, I feel like the "who should the Big Ten add" question has been driven into the ground?
I think it's more interesting just to ask if it could ever get to a point where Rutgers (or any school) would get the boot, and what would it take? Would on field lack of performance alone be enough? Is Rutgers' leash much shorter than when Northwestern was absolutely abysmal for 20 years simply because Rutgers is new, and Northwestern was a founding member? Does the TV structure play a role in how much rope they get?
Then, if they are kicked out, does the Big Ten feel the need to replace them? Is the question the same at 13 as it is at 14, that if the member is attractive enough (Texas) it doesn't really matter, but otherwise no for now, or at 13 are they more desperate to get back to 14? I think those are more interesting question than the "who"? The who is the same whether we are talking going from 14 to 16 or replacing Rutgers.
-
Would on field lack of performance alone be enough? Yes, if the networks deemed their content had no value
Is Rutgers' leash much shorter than when Northwestern was absolutely abysmal for 20 years simply because Rutgers is new, and Northwestern was a founding member? No, I don't think history has much to do with current and future revenue
Does the TV structure play a role in how much rope they get? Absolutely
Then, if they are kicked out, does the Big Ten feel the need to replace them? Yes, only kicking someone out because of revenue means the conference wants more money.
-
Yes, but the same-ish pie split 13 ways is better than split 14. So simply kicking them out may alone create more money.
-
I always like the idea of Great Lakes and Great Plains divisions, just for midwestern identity reasons, but it never seemed to work with the current list of teams. And, if we grow to 20 or so, I'd much rather have divisions of the Original Ten and Add-Ons. Except with actual good names.
-
agreed, but 13 is an odd number
so either kick out the next weakest link (Maryland) or add a 14th that brings the $$$
since I'm for smaller conferences, I'd get rid of the two that only brought TV sets on basic cable when the basic cable isn't cash flowing
-
agreed, but 13 is an odd number
so either kick out the next weakest link (Maryland) or add a 14th that brings the $$$
since I'm for smaller conferences, I'd get rid of the two that only brought TV sets on basic cable when the basic cable isn't cash flowing
13 doesn't matter if you get rid of divisions
-
I'm fine with that
Not a fan of CCGs.
If you get rid of divisions and CCGs ya might as well really cut the fat and go back to 11
-
I'm fine with that
Not a fan of CCGs.
If you get rid of divisions and CCGs ya might as well really cut the fat and go back to 11
Or, you know, go back to ten. A Big Ten.
And 8 in the Big 8.
And so on.
-
(https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.GFebXhy8Njpx6RV_IZGl5AHaEK&w=253&h=160&c=7&o=5&dpr=1.25&pid=1.7)
-
Meh, Big 11 sucks. This is what I'm talking about:
(https://thumb.ibb.co/hieAHK/yftST.png) (https://ibb.co/hieAHK)
-
I was looking at who destroyed Rutgers this past week as a reference to "what if" they were that bad going forward. Not just getting trounced by other teams in other conferences, but getting slaughtered by the likes of Kansas. The dregs of the other conferences beating up on them - even that level of sustained ineptitude wouldn't be enough to get rid of them?
Every conference has it's whipping boy(s), but when they're the whipping boy of the other whipping boys, that looks bad.
-
Is there an athletic performance clause included in the B1G conference membership bylaws? If not, I view this as a complete non-starter. And even if there is, attempting to boot out a conference member would be risky, and costly.
At this point, the enormous revenues associated with major conference affiliation are going to make it pretty difficult to oust a member of the major P5 conferences, Schools are making their budgets 10-15 years out based on the current revenue numbers as well as conference projections. They're also planning capital expenditures 15-25 years out based on the same.
Any conference that attempted to oust a member for anything other than institutional failure is going to be involved in litigation so fast it will make their heads spin. And if you do it to a state institution, you'll be doing so against state's attorneys.
Which is the main reason I say that in today's financial environment, I believe it to be extremely unlikely.
The B1G added Rutgers for one very specific reason, and for the most part has accomplished its goal. Any athletic underperformance at this point, is simply their cost of doing business.
-
Rutgers, Maryland, Nebraska and Penn State are still on their probation periods.
Michigan State, which joined in 1950, came off of probationary status in 2010.
-
Good Post 94 - I remember when Miami,VTech & B.C. all left for the ACC at the time that was suppose to be the dawning of a super conference.And those programs were enjoying success at the time,but wrenches get thrown in gears all the time.Be nice to just go back to proper alignment maybe 10 years ago or so.And make the indies join one conference
-
I always like the idea of Great Lakes and Great Plains divisions, just for midwestern identity reasons, but it never seemed to work with the current list of teams. And, if we grow to 20 or so, I'd much rather have divisions of the Original Ten and Add-Ons. Except with actual good names.
Yeah, but geographically that doesn't work unless all of the add-ons that we get are east coast teams to pair with PSU, UMD, Rutgers. So no Texas, Oklahoma, etc.
You just can't have a conference where the original 10 are all near each other geographically and all the add-ons have to fly over the original 10 to play each other. In this case even if you went to a bunch of East Coast teams, you have Nebraska flying all over the land to play those teams.
-
It's got to be a rarity - the conference punching bag not also being its "brainy" school. Vandy, Duke, Northwestern all fit the bill to some degree, Stanford, too, when they stunk.
-
It's got to be a rarity - the conference punching bag not also being its "brainy" school. Vandy, Duke, Northwestern all fit the bill to some degree, Stanford, too, when they stunk.
I wouldn't necessarily say it's a rarity.
In the SEC you have Kentucky. It's a basketball school that is the conference punching bag in football.
In the B1G you have Indiana. It's a basketball school that is the conference punching bag in football.
In the ACC you have Virginia, who is close to being on that list. They had a good run from 1982-2000, and Al Groh was at least hovering around a .500 record after that, but that's their only truly bright spot of the post-WWII era.
And Northwestern was once a conference punching bag, but I'd say they've pulled their way out of it over the last 30 years.
While it's rare of any school to retain punching bag status over a prolonged period, it's happened to enough schools that aren't small, prestigious, private schools that it should be called that much of a rarity.
-
I don't think it's realistic to believe that Rutgers would get kicked out, I think it's a lot more realistic to think that the B1G just expands to compensate for the pick. Here are some thoughts I have on the topic:
@TamrielsKeeper (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?topic=5490.msg67287#msg67287) - Nice first post post. welcome to the board
-
What ever happened to Tulane?
Founding member of the SEC. Went to a Rose Bowl, went to some Sugar Bowls. Good academic institution. In fertile recruiting grounds.
Their records look as if they underachieved right out of the conference in 1965. I don't know the real reason, but it's strange that they aren't a somebody anymore.
-
We are not but a time capsule.
Nobody is demanding the expulsion of teams that were added to the Conference before they were born, because those teams have been in the Conference as long as we've been alive, so they seem to us as though they belong.
Hence we have suggestions of a 20 team Conference with an "original ten" division where MSU, for example, is considered part of the old guard instead of one of the add ons.
There are only five schools that have been in the Conference the whole time.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/1014e83c6bd54de6d3aca99e92cc5a39.png)
-
So if we swapped Indiana for Nebraska, we could do old guard/add ons without even expanding, as the "West" would have all the teams that have consistently been in the Conference since the 19th century.
**King Barry's ears perked up**
-
The inclusion of Rutgers in the B1G relates to more than just football obviously. I think it "premature" to ponder why they should be ejected at this point, mostly because it simply is not going to happen. Just a few years ago they were viewed as a FB program with potential. Now they are struggling.
OK, so what? It's not worth contemplating a replacement for something not going to happen.
-
Wow, I guess all fiction writing is just kindling for camp fires, huh?
-
Wow, I guess all fiction writing is just kindling for camp fires, huh?
I'll be taking the kids camping next weekend. I guess we could use some kindling.
-
You can engage in complex schemes to eject Rutgers and go to some 20 team conference is you want, I don't mind, I just find all this pointless.
I see no evidence or indication that Rutgers is leaving the B1G.
In five years, they COULD have a decent team with the right coach.
-
so either kick out the next weakest link (Maryland) or add a 14th that brings the $$$
Careful FF,next weakest may not be Maryland - at least this year
-
Paper isn't kindling. It can be used as tinder, but it works best if you prepare it by rolling into tubes and such, making sure enough air can get in around the paper to feed the flames.
-
VTech always liked the Hokies
I've also championed Virginia Tech to move to the B1G. They are not AAU, however it's been reported they were very close to gaining membership in the the last AAU vote. VT specifically asked Big Ten Schools what they need to do to gain admittance, and have taken the advice seriously. They asked for an exemption and received it to include their medical campus in Raleigh to be included. (Part of the reason Nebraska lost AAU status is their Medical Campus in Omaha was no longer included, the other being that Ag research was deemed no longer competitive.) They have also increased their investment into the Arts, and have increased their endowment from 600 million to 1.7 Billion.
"VT is setting up for another round...they got some feedback last time from peer institutions. We were questioned about the broadness of our research, the diversity of the university and lack of relationship to the arts. Since then, VT has broadened the amount and scope of research with five research centers...look at the investment in performing arts...there is a much better case now. With the leadership with heavy Big 10 connections, we have more relationships to champion our cause."
I don't believe that AAU status is the end all be all for inclusion to the B1G, but it definitely doesn't hurt to have that feather in your cap.
-
So if we swapped Indiana for Nebraska, we could do old guard/add ons without even expanding, as the "West" would have all the teams that have consistently been in the Conference since the 19th century.
**King Barry's ears perked up**
Yeah, the guy who went to bat for his alma mater joining the conference can't wait to not play them anymore...
:34:
-
The Big Ten and SEC should remain divided by Civil War lines.
-
The Big Ten and SEC should remain divided by Civil War lines.
"Remain"?
Lincoln once said that he hoped god was on his side but he had to have Kentucky. Kentucky stayed in the Union and their Wildcats are in the SEC.
I'll add this: while both Maryland and Kentucky stayed in the Union, Kentucky did so by choice while Maryland was, for all intents and purposes, a Northern Occupied territory.
-
Does the AAU mean anything....? Seems more like a club than a standard.
-
"Remain"?
Lincoln once said that he hoped god was on his side but he had to have Kentucky. Kentucky stayed in the Union and their Wildcats are in the SEC.
I'll add this: while both Maryland and Kentucky stayed in the Union, Kentucky did so by choice while Maryland was, for all intents and purposes, a Northern Occupied territory.
Kentcky and Missouri had one foot in and one foot out.
-
The AAU is a nice club to be in, but I'm not clear that it is much of an advantage specifically. They don't have much money to dole out, and money is the root of all power.
Or something like that. Some very good schools are not AAU schools because they lack graduate school power (ND).
The B1G has some excellent graduate programs but I'd opine the ACC has better undergrad programs, aside from Laville.
-
Does the AAU mean anything....? Seems more like a club than a standard.
apparently not, if someone has helmet status
-
The AAU is a nice club to be in, but I'm not clear that it is much of an advantage specifically. They don't have much money to dole out, and money is the root of all power.
Or something like that. Some very good schools are not AAU schools because they lack graduate school power (ND).
The B1G has some excellent graduate programs but I'd opine the ACC has better undergrad programs, aside from Laville.
As you indicated, it is all about the money. The B1G understands this and focuses more on graduate programs and research because that is where the money is.
Notre Dame fans are incredulous when I say this, but I do not think that ND has the requisite academics to get a B1G invite. They look at ND's undergrad rankings and argue that ND would be one of the better academic schools in the B1G.
It isn't about undergrad rankings, it is about money and money comes from research. In that arena I believe that ND would be distantly last in the B1G.
-
Yeah, I recall that whenever we got a grant, the department would take some and the university would take quite a bit more.
It seemed logical because we were using university facilities of course. They also had university grants to new professors who had to have some seed money to get started.
-
The Big Ten and SEC should remain divided by Civil War lines.
Which civil war lines?
1767 Mason Dixon line
1820 Missouri Compromise?
1850 Omnibus Compromise
1854 Kansas/Nebraska Act
1861 Civil War Start
1864 Civil War End
Missouri was a Union State do we get them from SEC? But they were a slave state do they stay South?
Virginia was a Southern State at the start of the War, but West Virginia became a state because of the War, where do we put WV?
Virginia was occupied basically the entire war, can we make them an honorary North Member?
-
Of course not all research dollars are weighed the same or even counted by the AAU. Competitive vs non competitive research. It's a club.
-
Which civil war lines?
1767 Mason Dixon line
1820 Missouri Compromise?
1850 Omnibus Compromise
1854 Kansas/Nebraska Act
1861 Civil War Start
1864 Civil War End
Missouri was a Union State do we get them from SEC? But they were a slave state do they stay South?
Virginia was a Southern State at the start of the War, but West Virginia became a state because of the War, where do we put WV?
Virginia was occupied basically the entire war, can we make them an honorary North Member?
The one where KY and MO are in the south, whereas MD, DE, and WV are in the North.
-
growing up I always viewed Missouri as a southern state. Living here the past 14 years, it's really both. Interstate 70 appears to me to be a good dividing line between a southern culture and more of a Midwest culture.
-
I briefly lived in Higginsville, MO. It was North of 70, and the primary attraction was a Confederate cemetery.
-
by 15 miles or so..... I wasn't stating that to as an exact hard line. But like NY where the city and the rest of the state feel very different, I think the same holds true for Missouri.
-
growing up I always viewed Missouri as a southern state. Living here the past 14 years, it's really both. Interstate 70 appears to me to be a good dividing line between a southern culture and more of a Midwest culture.
Interstate 80 in Iowa has also been a dividing line. It's been suggested that if the Iowa/Missouri border were moved to I-80 it would nearly double the average IQ of it's states residents.
-
by 15 miles or so..... I wasn't stating that to as an exact hard line. But like NY where the city and the rest of the state feel very different, I think the same holds true for Missouri.
Someone said that a river in that area was the dividing line.
Since I was in second grade the year that I lived there, I'll have to take their word for it.
-
River would be a good visual line as well..
-
Yeah, looking at Google maps it is right in between I70 and the Missouri River; an east/west river that connects KC with SL.
-
Yeah, looking at Google maps it is right in between I70 and the Missouri River; an east/west river that connects KC with SL.
The E/W river that connects KC with SL is the Missouri, no?
-
KANSAS
-
The mountainous regions of the Confederacy were pro-union in the main. A county in north Georgia is called Union County. Most of the residents there hid out to avoid the war, including most of my kin apparently. Eastern Tennessee was very pro-Union, so perhaps Tennessee should go to the B1G.
I would disagree that Virginia was largely occupied during the Civil War. Parts of it were for sure, near Norfolk and near DC in the main.
The ACC obviously spans any Mason-Dixon demarkation, which of course just defines the MD-PA border, it doesn't not extend west at all.
-
Could you imagine West Virginia in the B10?
-
WV could technically go either way, since they broke away from Virginia during the Civil War.
-
Indiana which demonstrated its Northern bonafides in many ways during the CW sure does have a southern element in pockets of the state, mostly (again) south of I-70, but not really until you get out of Indy, and certainly South of Bloomington and again towards Louisville and SE towards Cincinnati. There's quite a broad range of dialects from N to S in this state.
-
Illinois is much the same in that regard. "Downstate" is typically in reference to anything South from I-80. It's different, for sure.
-
I've always been of the impression that Bloomington Normal is that dividing line of N and S. Cubs or Cardinals. People who still try to claim they live in Chicagoland vs those who know it's bulljive.
-
Cincinnati has an interesting "culture", or blend thereof, being a few miles from Indiana and across the river from KY. You hear a lot of different accents there.
Atlanta of course seems to be mostly transplants from Ohio and Michigan plus a lot of Hispanics. Part of the town is heavily Vietnamese populated and they have some good places to eat. In the park near us, one can see just about every kind of person and accent, even some French speaking folks at times.
-
Georgia Tech would be an interesting program to consider for a conference, but I suspect they are locked into the ACC for all practical purposes. They often do well in baseball. Their football seems to have fallen off quite a bit of late. I don't think a new coach would help much there though. Their offense is good for programs that can't recruit at a high level.
I'm somewhat surprised more teams don't adopt some version of that offense.
-
Meh, Big 11 sucks. This is what I'm talking about:
(https://thumb.ibb.co/hieAHK/yftST.png) (https://ibb.co/hieAHK)
This is great. How old is this and where did you find it?
-
For realsies....
Non-B10 AAU members with FBS football:
Buffalo
I mean, they are on the list
-
Just coming here to post it. May as well try the other side of New York. Hell, add Cornell too. We need another Big Red.
-
Repeating myself from another thread but sheesh Jeebis at home no less,hopefully Maryland comes around at least it'll be a wash.I know back in the '70s-'80s Northwestern was pretty weak but they are an original member and weren't reached out to like they were some kind of catch.Thanx Big Jim
-
I think we all realize that a good coach can turn around a program in a few years. Illinois is a sleeping program now.
Look at Purdue, the best 1-3 team in the country. Nobody wanted to kick Purdue out when they were bad though.
Rutgers is pretty clearly the weakest team in the conference at the moment, I think, but they were half decent just a couple years back. Or so.
And maybe they have good lacrosse teams.
A flagship NJ program has potential.
Maybe Nebraska should get the boot though.
-
Illinois has been a sleeping giant ever since Mike White was fired for cheating.
-
Put M, MSU, PSU, UW, Iowa and NU in a division. The others are in a separate division. Last place team from upper division drops to lower division and first place team from lower division moves up.
-
The Illini could be an 8 win team with a decent coach, but of course said coach would get poached soon enough if it happened.
Wisconsin managed a turnaround that has been pretty long lived.
-
Rutgers isn't just normal "worst in the conference" bad. Blown out by Kansas and Buffalo is a special kind of awful.
-
Put M, MSU, PSU, UW, Iowa and NU in a division. The others are in a separate division. Last place team from upper division drops to lower division and first place team from lower division moves up.
In many soccer leagues, they do this thing where you begin kind of without divisions and then after a certain amount of the season, teams are thrown into championship or leftovers bins and those bins finish with round robins. No need for a CCG and no bad taste in your mouth about "oh the game that could have been."
Sounds like a CFB dream. In the expansion era, at least.
-
Rutgers is pretty clearly the weakest team in the conference at the moment, I think, but they were half decent just a couple years back. Or so.
Maybe Nebraska should get the boot though.
yup
-
They may not have been the team that I'd've picked, but they're here now.
The B1G East has put up a fence around NJ, recruiting wise.
-
The B1G East has put up a fence around NJ, recruiting wise.
Look up Ron Dayne, Anthony Davis and Jonathon Taylor. There may be more. Old man memory fades.
-
Rutgers is pretty clearly the weakest team in the conference at the moment, I think, but they were half decent just a couple years back. Or so.
And maybe they have good lacrosse teams.
No, they are not good at any sports. Of the 15 sports they participate in the highest they finished in any was 9th. Seven of the sports they got dead last.
Rutgers winning percentage their 1st 4 years, across all sports:
2014-15: 50-127-1 (.284)
2015-16: 51-124-2 (.288)
2016-17: 37-132-7 (.230)
2017-18: 39-131-3 (.234)
They were brought in to deliver the New York Media Market, they are no longer doing that. It's time to drop them.
-
UGA recruits well in NJ of late, including their starting RB right now.
What are the steps a conference can take to drop a program? Can this even be done in the B1G?
I imagine it is possible, but perhaps the process is tortuous.
-
Rutgers isn't just normal "worst in the conference" bad. Blown out by Kansas and Buffalo is a special kind of awful.
It's like being blown out by Florida.
-
Would Syracuse deliver NYC Media market?
Comcast pretty clearly delineated their coverage to include only the home state's Big Ten Teams Reside.
(Plus Washington DC media market including parts of Virginia for Maryland)
I personally think they would only include New York State, and not NYC. But if they could deliver the biggest media market then they are clearly valuable.
Up thread it was mentioned that it was brands and not markets that was more valuable to the SEC. I think Missouri and Virginia Tech are the biggest brands BTN can get. (Unless the homeruns of ND, Texas, or Oklahoma become available.)
Would Kentucky be a big enough brand to merit consideration? (Talking brands, not Academics or TV market)
-
I think the "NY media market" when it comes to college football is illusory. Basketball, probably more, but the NE seems to be very oriented to professional sports. The SE of course had no pro sports so college sports developed into much more of a "thing", and the folks who moved south often hail from OH and MI and get college sports also.
Atlanta is a very college sports oriented town even though the primary college team here sucks.
A buddy of mine and his wife some OH is coming down in October and we're going to check out a sports bar for the UGA-UF game. He's a big OSU fan (and alum) and they are off that week apparently.
We passed a Taco Mac last night and they had a lot of screens glowing, I don't know if they are a sports bar or not, have to google. We avoid large chains these days.
-
I think the "NY media market" when it comes to college football is illusory. Basketball, probably more, but the NE seems to be very oriented to professional sports. The SE of course had no pro sports so college sports developed into much more of a "thing", and the folks who moved south often hail from OH and MI and get college sports also.
It's not the number of eyeballs per se, as much as getting it on the basic tier in the market. That's the guaranteed money. Comcast didn't want to pay the Big Ten on a per subscriber basis for the whole NYC market, on the basis of Rutgers, which is why the new deal is on a "home state" basis, rather than a local market basis, so that NYC is now excluded. That was the impetus for Rutgers in the first place, is that the initial B1G-Comcast deal called for automatically moving it to a basic tier in the local markets, which I think was something crazy like an extra 40 cents per subscriber. Figure out what 40 cents per subscriber is for the NYC market, and you see the sole purpose for adding Rutgers, not about actual eyeballs. Hell, if they brought the actual eyeballs, Comcast probably wouldn't mind paying it. But to your point, people in NYC aren't watching, but Comcast is paying for them anyway.
I have to imagine the new deal doesn't allow for automatic shifts based on conference realignment, so that even if the Big Ten added Syracuse, I can't imagine that would automatically put all of New York State into the BTN basic tier.
-
Ed Zachery
it's about staying on the basic tier
Comcast had some push back at the latest round of negotiations, but it's all good now.
-
Comcast can do the math obviously. If it doesn't pay out for them, they will drop out.
-
I think the "NY media market" when it comes to college football is illusory.
It is. This is an old article (https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/), but I have never seen an update so it will have to do for now:
To your point and from the link provided: "(O)n a per-capita basis, there are probably about 5 times as many football fans in Birmingham as there are in New York. so although the New York media market is about 10 times larger, it has fewer than twice as many college football fans as Birmingham."
When the article came out NYC was the largest College Football Fan market in the country, but only barely. The top 10:
- 2.9M out of 20.2M people, NYC
- 2.6M out of 6.5M people, ATL
- 2.6M out of 15.3M people, LA
- 1.9M out of 7.0M people, DAL
- 1.8M out of 9.4M people, CHI
- 1.7M out of 2.1M people, Birmingham
- 1.7M out of 8.1M people, Philly
- 1.6M out of 5.9M people, HOU
- 1.4M out of 4.8M people, Tampa-St Pete
- 1.3M out of 5.1M people, Detroit
According to the article, Rutgers is (or at least was in 2011) the strongest school in the NYC market but they are hardly dominant. Here is the top-10 in the NYC market according to the linked 2011 NYT article:
- 21% of market, Rutgers
- 9% of market, Notre Dame
- 6% of market, Penn State
- 5% of market, UCONN
- 5% of market, Michigan
- 5% of market, Cuse
- 3% of market, Miami, FL
- 3% of market, Army
- 2% of market, Ohio State
- 2% of market, Boston College
By way of comparison, in the Omaha TV market Nebraska has a 71% share. Note that in the NYC market the top-10 teams do not have 71% combined.
-
I'm having a hard time buying those LA numbers.
-
Comcast can do the math obviously. If it doesn't pay out for them, they will drop out.
there's plenty of guessing to be done
how many subscribers do they lose to current or rising prices? Customers can be lost for many reasons
How much would this be influenced by $0.40/month?
Can they expect to attract new subscribers if they drop the basic rate $0.50/month?
how many subscribers would they lose if the BTN was not included on basic? probably not many
would many customers would pay more for the premium sports package if BTN was moved there? probably not many
taking all these factors - what does this do to the bottom-line?
Many "experts" have opinions on these guesses, but they are just guessing until the change is made. And then it might take a year or better to assess the impact.
-
I'm having a hard time buying those LA numbers.
To be perfectly honest there are a few things in that article that I have my doubts about but they used an objective method and I've never seen anyone else even try to quantify things like this that we guess about all the time. I'd love to see some alternatives that we could compare to, but I really never have.
-
It is. This is an old article (https://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/the-geography-of-college-football-fans-and-realignment-chaos/), but I have never seen an update so it will have to do for now:
To your point and from the link provided: "(O)n a per-capita basis, there are probably about 5 times as many football fans in Birmingham as there are in New York. so although the New York media market is about 10 times larger, it has fewer than twice as many college football fans as Birmingham."
When the article came out NYC was the largest College Football Fan market in the country, but only barely. The top 10:
- 2.9M out of 20.2M people, NYC
- 2.6M out of 6.5M people, ATL
- 2.6M out of 15.3M people, LA
- 1.9M out of 7.0M people, DAL
- 1.8M out of 9.4M people, CHI
- 1.7M out of 2.1M people, Birmingham
- 1.7M out of 8.1M people, Philly
- 1.6M out of 5.9M people, HOU
- 1.4M out of 4.8M people, Tampa-St Pete
- 1.3M out of 5.1M people, Detroit
According to the article, Rutgers is (or at least was in 2011) the strongest school in the NYC market but they are hardly dominant. Here is the top-10 in the NYC market according to the linked 2011 NYT article:
- 21% of market, Rutgers
- 9% of market, Notre Dame
- 6% of market, Penn State
- 5% of market, UCONN
- 5% of market, Michigan
- 5% of market, Cuse
- 3% of market, Miami, FL
- 3% of market, Army
- 2% of market, Ohio State
- 2% of market, Boston College
By way of comparison, in the Omaha TV market Nebraska has a 71% share. Note that in the NYC market the top-10 teams do not have 71% combined.
birmingham is a sports crazy market.
they're routinely tops in cfb for most games (excluding the participant teams, meaning for upcoming osu/psu game, bham will be at or near tops of markets not associated with osu/psu, and likely in top 10 overall).
it's also usually at/near top 10 for us national soccer team, and was top 5 in a few wc games, including the opening game.
i've read that it's also among the best non-professional team markets for nfl, mlb and nba as well. but i can't find those articles anymore.
-
I'm having a hard time buying those LA numbers.
I think it makes sense, it's just more glaring because they have two major college football teams, so we see all the empties. The fans are there, comparable to NYC, they just are transplants, or don't want to go to games. If Rutgers played games in a 100,000 seat stadium in NYC, it would make the Rose Bowl for a regular season UCLA game look like a hot ticket. We criticize LA college fans for not going to games, and they don't, but it doesn't mean the fans aren't there, they just, probably much like NYC, aren't fans of UCLA/USC necessarily.
-
better question might be has any of the last 4 expansion teams been worth it....
-
better question might be has any of the last 4 expansion teams been worth it....
You're talking about PSU, UNL, UMD and Rutgers to the B1G?
-
I'm having a hard time buying those LA numbers.
I'm not. Not at all.
First and foremost, USC is a huge brand here. Much like a Notre Dame, even though locals didn't get in and can't afford to attend, they're USC fans. And there are a LOT of those fans here. Far bigger than UCLA too.
You also have to remember that although LA is a bit more of a "pro" sports team town like NY, they've been without a pro football team for a while. And everyone hates the Chargers, so right now it's really only the Rams that are getting any local love. So for a long time, and in the Reggie Bush days it was more true than not, USC was Los Angeles' professional football team.
And as others pointed out, there are tons of transplants here. Even lowly Purdue has 2 bars that host game watch parties for the alumni club in LA County, one in OC, and one in San Diego County.
So that doesn't really surprise me that you could come up with 2.6M college football fans here.
-
birmingham is a sports crazy market.
So you're saying UAB is the next member of the B1G? :57:
-
I'm not. Not at all.
First and foremost, USC is a huge brand here. Much like a Notre Dame, even though locals didn't get in and can't afford to attend, they're USC fans. And there are a LOT of those fans here. Far bigger than UCLA too.
You also have to remember that although LA is a bit more of a "pro" sports team town like NY, they've been without a pro football team for a while. And everyone hates the Chargers, so right now it's really only the Rams that are getting any local love. So for a long time, and in the Reggie Bush days it was more true than not, USC was Los Angeles' professional football team.
And as others pointed out, there are tons of transplants here. Even lowly Purdue has 2 bars that host game watch parties for the alumni club in LA County, one in OC, and one in San Diego County.
So that doesn't really surprise me that you could come up with 2.6M college football fans here.
OK, I see the point. I guess I also didn't consider the huge numbers of B1G alumni out there. Hell, that brew pub on Balboa probably had 250 UW alumni for the bowl game I watched there.
-
I'm not. Not at all.
First and foremost, USC is a huge brand here. Much like a Notre Dame, even though locals didn't get in and can't afford to attend, they're USC fans. And there are a LOT of those fans here. Far bigger than UCLA too.
You also have to remember that although LA is a bit more of a "pro" sports team town like NY, they've been without a pro football team for a while. And everyone hates the Chargers, so right now it's really only the Rams that are getting any local love. So for a long time, and in the Reggie Bush days it was more true than not, USC was Los Angeles' professional football team.
And as others pointed out, there are tons of transplants here. Even lowly Purdue has 2 bars that host game watch parties for the alumni club in LA County, one in OC, and one in San Diego County.
So that doesn't really surprise me that you could come up with 2.6M college football fans here.
Not disagreeing with you, just adding to what you said:
My guess is that with all the transplants no team really dominates the LA market. Instead of being like Omaha where nearly three-quarters of the fans are fans of one team (Nebraska), my guess is that LA is more like NYC where the leading team has somewhere around one-quarter (maybe a tad higher in LA mostly just because USC is generally better than RU).
-
My guess is that with all the transplants no team really dominates the LA market. Instead of being like Omaha where nearly three-quarters of the fans are fans of one team (Nebraska), my guess is that LA is more like NYC where the leading team has somewhere around one-quarter (maybe a tad higher in LA mostly just because USC is generally better than RU).
I think USC is definitely above 1/4, probably about 1/3-1/2, but in general I think you're right. They're not >1/2 in my opinion.
Here's a good look: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html#9,33.588,-117.041
It gives you the top three by zip code. In the bulk of LA County, USC dominates with anywhere between 33-50% of fans, with UCLA in second at around 20% and Oregon in third at just under 10% generally. Get a bit farther south, such as where I live in OC, and USC drops to about 20%, still followed by UCLA and Oregon. But that shows you that the "local" passion dwindles and there must be a lot of transplant support.
-
Out west, it's just different.
The Phoenix area probably has 10x the people of Gainesville, FL, but I doubt there are more actual college football fans here than there. There's plenty of ASU bumper stickers, but that's just taking a side between UofA/ASU. They're not actually fans of college football. They couldn't name ASU's quarterback...and they have a damn sticker on their car.
In Gville, you've got a UF flag in every other front yard, everyone goes to games, and it's just automatic. ASU and UF both have massive undergrad student populations, but those are just drunk kids going with the flow - looking more forward to the party after the game than the game itself. That's at all schools, imo.
We, here, are football nerds. Actual fans. We make college football a priority in our lives and designate X% of our attention to it. That % is far higher than the bumper sticker brigades of Phoenix or LA or wherever.
College football fandom lives and breathes between central Texas and eastern PA. The rest of the country treats it like it's the Kardashians or America's Got Talent or the Oscars. Something to dip their toe in to have something to talk about in case the subject comes up in social situations.
-
Good take OAM. I've lived in that belt and then again in the NFL rust belt. Cliffs notes college football fans. Novelty.
-
Phoenix is a retirement town. I bet there are more CF fans than you think, just not fans of the local team.
-
I think USC is definitely above 1/4, probably about 1/3-1/2, but in general I think you're right. They're not >1/2 in my opinion.
Here's a good look: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/10/03/upshot/ncaa-football-map.html#9,33.588,-117.041
It gives you the top three by zip code. In the bulk of LA County, USC dominates with anywhere between 33-50% of fans, with UCLA in second at around 20% and Oregon in third at just under 10% generally. Get a bit farther south, such as where I live in OC, and USC drops to about 20%, still followed by UCLA and Oregon. But that shows you that the "local" passion dwindles and there must be a lot of transplant support.
Thank you for the map link. I couldn't get the link in the original NYT story to work.
Just one semantic point of clarification. I don't consider USC's 33-50% to be indicative of USC "dominating". I admit that it is my definition not webster's but to me, dominating is two things:
- Being the favorite team of more than half of the people in a given zip (51%+)
- Having no other team within one-third of your own.
Ie, if you found some zip in Michigan where Michigan had 51% and Michigan State had 49% that wouldn't be "dominated" by Michigan because it is too close. Similarly in some of those SoCal zips where USC has 30%, UCLA has 8%, and Oregon has 7% I don't consider that to be dominated by USC because they aren't half.
When I think of "dominated" I think of something like the Omaha Metro Area that the article used as an example where nearly three quarters of CFB fans are fans of one team, Nebraska.
-
Fair enough... The term "dominates" is debatable.
Just saying that USC has the solid #1 spot, UCLA the solid #2 spot, and then Oregon is probably #3 but ahead of a lot of other teams (Stanford, Cal, Michigan, OSU, Texas, Alabama) nipping at their heals.
It's certainly not dominating, but I'd say that's the case with any enormous metro area.
Look at the Chicago suburbs, for example. Illinois and Notre Dame are consistently 1/2, but typically in about almost an even 10%/10% split through most of the burbs, except when you head to the south area where it's more heavily Catholic.
NYC is the same. If you look at it, you don't see a lot of teams >10%.
Then look at Atlanta. UGA isn't getting >35% there. You'd expect them to be higher than that to be called "dominating".
Nebraska? Yeah, UNL is >60% and mostly greater than 70% throughout the state. But then, Nebraska isn't a geographic "magnet" for the surrounding states in the way that Chicago, NYC, or Atlanta is.
-
https://frankthetank.me/2018/05/18/oh-the-places-youll-go-where-big-ten-graduates-live-and-conference-realignment/ (https://frankthetank.me/2018/05/18/oh-the-places-youll-go-where-big-ten-graduates-live-and-conference-realignment/)
Frank the tank posted some interesting stats on where BIG graduates go.... Basically every big schools sends kids to LA after graduation. Same with D.C., SF and NY. Kids from all the BIG schools end up in those cities post graduation. I'd guess other conferences would see something similar. Some cities have a lot of college fans, but just no dominant market team.
-
I think that @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) and @Entropy (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1559) are right. Certain cities (NYC, CHI, LA, ATL, SF, DC, etc) are "magnet" cities so they are inherently going to have a mix of fans of pretty much every major CFB team and the home teams will never really "dominate" (when defining dominate as I did above).
Consequently, none of those media markets can truly be "dominated" by any one team or in some cases even any one conference. I would imagine that the SEC collectively dominates ATL and that the B1G collectively dominates Chicago.
-
I think that @bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) and @Entropy (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1559) are right. Certain cities (NYC, CHI, LA, ATL, SF, DC, etc) are "magnet" cities so they are inherently going to have a mix of fans of pretty much every major CFB team and the home teams will never really "dominate" (when defining dominate as I did above).
Consequently, none of those media markets can truly be "dominated" by any one team or in some cases even any one conference. I would imagine that the SEC collectively dominates ATL and that the B1G collectively dominates Chicago.
Agreed. Which is almost why it's more interesting to look at the major metropolitan areas as far as "outliers" are concerned...
LA for example is a lot more USC-centric than, say, Chicago or NYC or San Francisco. It's about as USC-centric as Atlanta is UGA-centric. For a small, elite, private school, that's surprising. It's not like Chicago rallied around Northwestern in the same way that LA has rallied around USC.
What's kinda interesting is that I looked at the SF bay area, as I'd lived there in the past. In San Jose, SJSU is the leader, but in only a few zip codes do they get above 20%. In SF itself, it's the same as Chicago or NYC, with basically no team having a clear >10% lead. But oddly, on the peninsula, Stanford is really popular in a way that surprised me. The zip codes near Palo Alto have a 35% plus Stanford support, some >40%. But even as you get progressively farther away, there are a lot of areas that Stanford is still >20%.
With all the transplants to the Bay Area, PARTICULARLY the number of highly educated [i.e. college grad] transplants who bring their own rooting interests, I'm surprised that Stanford, as a small elite private school, has that much support.
That one kinda surprised me. Seattle was a little bit surprising as well, with how much it's grown over the past two decades, and how many transplants they have--again, highly educated transplants drawn in by Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, and all the tech companies that have sprouted up from those big ones. It's basically dominated [to use your term AND definition, medina] by Washington support. I thought it might be diluted more than it has been.
-
Salt Lake is surprisingly rabid about CFB, considering they only have a mid major and a former mid major to root for.
Not much else for their sports fans to latch onto, and the rivalry between their two local teams transcends Football, and extends into religion, politics, and everyday life.
-
Agreed. Which is almost why it's more interesting to look at the major metropolitan areas as far as "outliers" are concerned...
LA for example is a lot more USC-centric than, say, Chicago or NYC or San Francisco. It's about as USC-centric as Atlanta is UGA-centric. For a small, elite, private school, that's surprising. It's not like Chicago rallied around Northwestern in the same way that LA has rallied around USC.
I'm guessing if NU performed on the gridiron the way the Trojan War machine has for over 100 yrs Chi-Town would have.Of course LA didn't have a pro team until the Rams arrived in 1946 after winning a championship I believe
-
Is there some viable known mechanism by which the B1G can eject a university?
-
I'm guessing if NU performed on the gridiron the way the Trojan War machine has for over 100 yrs Chi-Town would have.Of course LA didn't have a pro team until the Rams arrived in 1946 after winning a championship I believe
I was thinking the same thing. In deference to the late Marcel/nuwildcat, Northwestern's long-term performance simply pales in comparison to USC's. If Northwestern had a history like USC's, then I would assume that Chicago would be much more strongly supportive.
-
Is there some viable known mechanism by which the B1G can eject a university?
It is a thread in search of a "realistic" answer to an unrealistic scenario.
-
Is there some viable known mechanism by which the B1G can eject a university?
Yes. The conference discussed a Penn State whack a few years ago (Sandusky).
-
What is said mechanism?
What is required to remove a member?
-
I think it is by unanimous vote of the other 13 members now (at the time of PSU it was 11 members).
Not easy to do. PSU never got to a vote - only discussion.
-
Well see, that brings up an interesting point. Say the Sandusky thing happened at Rutgers. A school only added for dollars and faux-eyeballs....not a strong addition with a great history....what then?
I'd guess Rutgers would've gotten a harsher initial sentence and would not have been afforded the concessions after the fact. They would've had no noble coach (O'Brien) to steward them through nasty waters and may very well have been cut loose by the conference.
Or I'm just crazy, right? Rutgers + Sandusky = ?
-
PSU's helmet factor certainly helped. Rutgers is probably gone, had it happened there. I have to believe there is some buyer's remorse among the chancellors and presidents anyway. A Sandusky-like occurrence would be a good excuse, but precedent is set now because of PSU.
Being a helmet has its privileges. Everyone knows this.
-
Well, I still think the question is moot.
-
Michigan fans have begun to call Rutgers "Rutger," as if the original were a plural and they lost the privilege, and somehow this seems far** more demeaning and hilarious to me than tO$U or scUM. I won't be sad if it sticks.
**(I could never bold, italicize, underline and all caps that enough)
-
Well, in an years, Rutgers will be in the Big Ten.
-
Well, I still think the question is moot.
Of course it's moot. Given the massive budgets involved among state institutions, you really think the B1G wants to open itself to that much litigation? Of course they don't.
Some type of institutional failure, of course, is a different story.
But poor athletic performance? Nope. The B1G administrators knew that's what they were signing up for from the beginning. They accepted it as the cost of doing business and moved on.
-
Rutgers with a good coach could be decent, like Kentucky decent.
-
Michigan fans have begun to call Rutgers "Rutger," as if the original were a plural and they lost the privilege, and somehow this seems far** more demeaning and hilarious to me than tO$U or scUM. I won't be sad if it sticks.
**(I could never bold, italicize, underline and all caps that enough)
I thought everyone knew about this.
-
(1) new to me
(2) awesome
-
Well see, that brings up an interesting point. Say the Sandusky thing happened at Rutgers. A school only added for dollars and faux-eyeballs....not a strong addition with a great history....what then?
I'd guess Rutgers would've gotten a harsher initial sentence and would not have been afforded the concessions after the fact. They would've had no noble coach (O'Brien) to steward them through nasty waters and may very well have been cut loose by the conference.
Or I'm just crazy, right? Rutgers + Sandusky = ?
Oh, well why didn't you stipulate that in the OP. That certainly raises the plausibility of this unlikely scenario.
Two teams from the same division of the same conference in neighboring states both happen to have harbored a chomo on the coaching staff.
What a thread!
-
They are definitely bringing the best mascot to the table.
(https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/32363617/20131104_kkt_sn3_307.0.jpg)
-
I dislike people mascots. And that's one of the worst.
-
Well see, that brings up an interesting point. Say the Sandusky thing happened at Rutgers. A school only added for dollars and faux-eyeballs....not a strong addition with a great history....what then?
I'd guess Rutgers would've gotten a harsher initial sentence and would not have been afforded the concessions after the fact. They would've had no noble coach (O'Brien) to steward them through nasty waters and may very well have been cut loose by the conference.
Or I'm just crazy, right? Rutgers + Sandusky = ?
Here's what would have happened.
NOTHING.
You know why? Nobody cares about Rutgers.
Baylor covered up for murder and numerous rapes BY THEIR ATHLETES and nothing happened to them. You know why? Because hardly anybody cares about Baylor. People care even less about Rutgers. How many average people do you think know about the crime ring Rutger's football players had this off season?
Need another example? Michigan State's issues. That got some publicity, but it would have been much worse at a helmet school.
Helmet schools are under a microscope. Trade swag for tattoos? HUGE PROBLEM, BETTER REVAMP THE ENTIRE PROGRAM. Coaching staff doesn't fire someone even though they were never convicted of a crime? FIRE URBAN, OHIO STATE COVERS UP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN!!!
-
The southern helmets aren't under the same microscope.
-
Shameless Jameis the rapist, Mixon's KO punch, Cam Newton, Miami's various shenanigans, and so forth.
-
Michigan fans have begun to call Rutgers "Rutger," as if the original were a plural and they lost the privilege, and somehow this seems far** more demeaning and hilarious to me than tO$U or scUM. I won't be sad if it sticks.
**(I could never bold, italicize, underline and all caps that enough)
Now that's funny...
-
Here's what would have happened.
NOTHING.
You know why? Nobody cares about Rutgers.
Baylor covered up for murder and numerous rapes BY THEIR ATHLETES and nothing happened to them. You know why? Because hardly anybody cares about Baylor. People care even less about Rutgers. How many average people do you think know about the crime ring Rutger's football players had this off season?
Need another example? Michigan State's issues. That got some publicity, but it would have been much worse at a helmet school.
Helmet schools are under a microscope. Trade swag for tattoos? HUGE PROBLEM, BETTER REVAMP THE ENTIRE PROGRAM. Coaching staff doesn't fire someone even though they were never convicted of a crime? FIRE URBAN, OHIO STATE COVERS UP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN!!!
I disagree with this premise. Had Sandusky happened at Rutger, they'd be toast.
-
I disagree with this premise. Had Sandusky happened at Rutger, they'd be toast.
an active coach (not former) was accused of the same thing at Syracuse... they are still around. It barely made the news cycle.
Ratings matter, and Rutgers just doesn't provide the ratings of a helmet school.
-
an active coach (not former) was accused of the same thing at Syracuse... they are still around. It barely made the news cycle.
Ratings matter, and Rutgers just doesn't provide the ratings of a helmet school.
Rutger. There is no longer a "s" at the end.
-
Does "Rutger" put "Whisky" and "Sconnie" back on the table?
-
Does "Rutger" put "Whisky" and "Sconnie" back on the table?
Would you like a seat at the big boy table for the board meeting?
-
No thanks. I just want clarity on the rules.
Are condescending nicknames for the other Big Ten schools taboo, or are they fair game?
If it depends on the school, which fall into what category?
-
I think it's kinda silly to have those nicknames, like scum or O$U or Whiskey. But the Rutger thing just fits so damn well.
Illinoi might be a good one too.
-
In a separate and entirely unrelated matter, I've noticed that none of the Rutgers posters are active anymore.
-
Perhaps they know their fate. They'd fit nicely in the AAC.
-
Yet another thing that they have in common with The Wolverines.
-
Here's what would have happened.
NOTHING.
You know why? Nobody cares about Rutgers.
Baylor covered up for murder and numerous rapes BY THEIR ATHLETES and nothing happened to them. You know why? Because hardly anybody cares about Baylor. People care even less about Rutgers. How many average people do you think know about the crime ring Rutger's football players had this off season?
Need another example? Michigan State's issues. That got some publicity, but it would have been much worse at a helmet school.
Helmet schools are under a microscope. Trade swag for tattoos? HUGE PROBLEM, BETTER REVAMP THE ENTIRE PROGRAM. Coaching staff doesn't fire someone even though they were never convicted of a crime? FIRE URBAN, OHIO STATE COVERS UP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN!!!
Don't even get me started on the drama that happens when TWENTY too many MINUTES of STRETCHING are revealed to have happened per WEEK.
-
I remember some Chic alumni fan showed up for about 5 posts when Rutgers joined.Not too many Maryland fans either
-
The couple/few Rutgers fans we did have (on the old Scout site) were pretty combative/defensive if I remember right. One, I think, was reasonable.
It's OK that they didn't come here. I don't think they'd blend (like their school with all of ours), and they certainly wouldn't like this topic.
-
I seem to remember a few came into the old board from their home board and they seemed quite affable.Were welcomed then disappeared like yesterdays paper
-
I just can't imagine why they might have bailed.
-
Dunno it was the off season and game had not been played.Perhaps football in the North East doesn't have the same following as Beisbol or Hoops or real housewives
-
The couple/few Rutgers fans we did have (on the old Scout site) were pretty combative/defensive if I remember right. One, I think, was reasonable.
It's OK that they didn't come here. I don't think they'd blend (like their school with all of ours), and they certainly wouldn't like this topic.
Yeah the only downside of this thread is that it's mean, but since they are gone and no one replaced them ...
-
It's just funny that we have to walk on eggshells while discussing certain teams due to the overwhelming sensitivity of their posters, while oftentimes those same sensitive posters are quick to deploy the exact same behavior that they were complaining about towards programs less fortunate than their own.
Although the ability to dish it but not take it is hardly unique to these here message boards of course.
-
If you want to call my school a silly name, have at it. I don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's off-limits. Nobody here ever said that.
I just think you like to pick.
-
Okay, if Northwestern disappoints me this weekend I'm breaking out the Mildcats.
-
What about Nebraka?
What if Nebraka beats Purdue even? Is it then again Purdon't?
-
Yeah, I wasn't trying to single you out, you were just the one that posted before I jumped in. I've been admonished for using Purdon't before, even though I said it because I was rooting for them to pull off the upset, and I was disappointed that they blew it in the waning moments.
There's also a certain Michigan poster who will throw an absolute sissy-fit if you take even the slightest jab at that program. Of course that account is the poster boy for a fella that can dish it but not take it.
Overall though, I say we all get along pretty well for a group of people that come here specifically to discuss college football with a bunch of rival fan bases.
-
name calling as been around a few centuries
-
It's just funny that we have to walk on eggshells while discussing certain teams due to the overwhelming sensitivity of their posters, while oftentimes those same sensitive posters are quick to deploy the exact same behavior that they were complaining about towards programs less fortunate than their own.
Although the ability to dish it but not take it is hardly unique to these here message boards of course.
By all means say the same thing without pronouns or stand-ins. The truth is that everyone here is hypersensitive in the right moment and tries to be cool in all the others. Which is just like people. Not a group of them but all of them.
-
Overall though, I say we all get along pretty well for a group of people that come here specifically to discuss college football with a bunch of rival fan bases.
This is precisely why, when presented with the opportunity from @Drew4UTk (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=1) , I decided to invest in this place and also bring ELA in on the action. I just wish we could get more people to come, so we could make ends meet. The Amazon thing is helping, for sure.
-
I purchased a vacuum for my daughter
shipped today
-
Here's what would have happened.
NOTHING.
You know why? Nobody cares about Rutgers.
Baylor covered up for murder and numerous rapes BY THEIR ATHLETES and nothing happened to them.
I assume all major college football teams are guilty of numerous rapes every year.
All you need is the age group, the numbers, booze, and bad decisions and there you have it.
-
FWIW, my issue with "Purdon't" is that it's frankly just a weak insult. I expect better from most fans [Hoosiers excluded].
-
exactly
at least be clever
-
FWIW, my issue with "Purdon't" is that it's frankly just a weak insult. I expect better from most fans [Hoosiers excluded].
For sure. I mean it's a play on words, at least, but it's not one worth executing.
tO$U and U$C, likewise, show no effort.
Ditto scUM, but that one may be even worse, since those letters don't even try to be clever (the s and c are neither naturally related to Michigan, nor are they part of some abbreviation). It's no better or worse than dUMb, bUMs or rUMplestiltskin. It's popularity seems unconscionable to everyone except those who use it.
At least TTUN has a backstory, though I guess it isn't really demeaning (both sides seem to like it).
-
TDS was a good one that Urban coined for BYU when he was at Utah. It stood for "Team down south" in an obviously OSU inspired jab. It still lives on to this day.
Although today it has taken on new meaning in popular vernacular as "Trump derangement syndrome" which ironically is better suited as a descriptor for Ute fans than it is for their Cougar adversaries.
-
No love for fUCLA?
The Aggies like to call us "t.u."
And we simply say "ou sucks"
-
Those ain't Big Ten teams, amigo. But yeah, just more silliness.
-
Conversation
(https://mobile.twitter.com/MattSugam)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/968115709569060865/cSN0Ce1x_reasonably_small.jpg)
(https://mobile.twitter.com/MattSugam)
(https://mobile.twitter.com/MattSugam)[color=rgba(20, 23, 26, 1)]Matt Sugam
[color=rgba(101, 119, 134, 1)]@MattSugam[/color]
(https://mobile.twitter.com/MattSugam)
[color=rgba(20, 23, 26, 1)]Walking behind Buffalo players on the way to the bus after beating Rutgers 42-13.
One player: “I thought that was Delaware State out there.”
Second player: “Man, they’d lose to Delaware State.”[/color]
[color=rgba(101, 119, 134, 1)][color=rgba(101, 119, 134, 1)]3:05 PM · Sep 22, 2018[/color] (https://mobile.twitter.com/MattSugam/status/1043592026766430208)[/size][/color]
[/font][/size][/color]
-
Those ain't Big Ten teams, amigo. But yeah, just more silliness.
Oh, my deepest apologies. Didn't realize y'all were limiting the discussion to ONLY stupid names for B1G teams.
Guess I'll just abandon the B1G board and stick to the B12.
-
Syracuse seems to be a hard nosed team.
-
I always thought Syracuse would be a good B10 addition.
-
Oh, my deepest apologies. Didn't realize y'all were limiting the discussion to ONLY stupid names for B1G teams.
Guess I'll just abandon the B1G board and stick to the B12.
Don't be so sensative. I was just messing around. Have a Tito's!!
-
good idea
-
I always thought Syracuse would be a good B10 addition.
Heck, Buffalo would be an upgrade over Buttgers.
-
Does anyone have any idea as to whether the PTBs at Rutgers are interested in Football (and athletics)?
If they are, that could matter, and they might shell out to get a decent coach at some point. They should be able to be a 7-5 kind of program at some point, I think.
-
They might still be a 7-5 type program had Schiano not used RU as a stepping stone.
But that's all the program really is. No respectable coach is going to want to stick around Piscataway, long-term.
-
I always thought Syracuse would be a good B10 addition.
Heck, Buffalo would be an upgrade over Buttgers.
I am under the impression that feelers were put out to Syracuse, with a resounding "No" as a reply. Syracuse wanted to stay with their Big East Rivals and liked the smaller elite undergrad profile of the ACC over the Large Land Grant research orientation of the B1G.
-
I don't think Syracuse was ever considered. This thing was about the DC and NYC TV markets, plain and simple, although I always though Maryland made sense, and posted about it 10+ years ago, along with Nebraska making sense.
-
I don't think Syracuse was ever considered. This thing was about the DC and NYC TV markets, plain and simple, although I always though Maryland made sense, and posted about it 10+ years ago, along with Nebraska making sense.
My info came from an OSU Board of Regents member, so I think it was credible to say feelers were put out on Syracuse. I also thought early TV indicators said Syracuse and Rutgers had a decent chance to bring the NYC Market.
I also thought and still think Maryland makes sense. It's not a football homerun, but they meet every other metric.
-
I always thought Nebraska was the best alternate for Notre Dame in order to get to 12, but thought of them as equally unrealistic. Never thought we'd expand beyond 12. I was afraid we'd get stuck with the Cyclones.
If I were to hand pick two expansion candidates out of the Northeast, it would have been Syracuse and Pitt. Of course I don't give a crap about TV markets.
Nevertheless, it is done now. We gained two much needed recruiting hot beds, and we are more competitive Nationally as a result.
-
Does anyone have any idea as to whether the PTBs at Rutgers are interested in Football (and athletics)?
If they are, that could matter, and they might shell out to get a decent coach at some point. They should be able to be a 7-5 kind of program at some point, I think.
Rutgers is doing EXACTLY what they were brought in to do. They were obviously invited for the TV money. They weren't invited to be a 7-5 team. Having an entire conference of 7-5 teams is not the goal
gonna be a few door mats for PSU, OSU, MU, and Wiscy to wipe their feet on their way to the CFB playoff
-
Does anyone have any idea as to whether the PTBs at Rutgers are interested in Football (and athletics)?
If they are, that could matter, and they might shell out to get a decent coach at some point. They should be able to be a 7-5 kind of program at some point, I think.
They'll only do that by displacing some other B1G team down the ladder, and then will some people insist Illinois or Indiana should get booted?
The truth is that 7-5 is a lot to ask of a bottom tier team in a conference that only plays three OOC games. Even assuming all thee OOC wins, you're still asking that team to go 4-5 in conference. You're simply not going to have multiple teams at the bottom that are going to be able to pull that off. Someone's invariably only winning 1 or 2 conference games every year. That's just the way it works out.
Here's the B1G in-conference results for the past 5 years:
2017: 6 teams 3-6 or worse in-conference
2016: 5 teams 3-6 or worse in-conference
2015: 7 teams 3-5 or worse in-conference (8 game conference schedule)
2014: 7 teams 3-5 or worse in-conference
2013: 5 teams 3-5 or worse in-conference
-
Rutgers has also provided the Big Ten with a lot of bad press (off the field) since it joined. It's been a clown show.
-
Penn State provided the B1G with a heck of a lot more bad press than Rutgers.
They gonna get booted?
-
It was pretty close for them, but also completely different scenarios.
Also unrelated.. Baylor. So now what?
-
Rutgers is doing EXACTLY what they were brought in to do. They were obviously invited for the TV money. They weren't invited to be a 7-5 team. Having an entire conference of 7-5 teams is not the goal
gonna be a few door mats for PSU, OSU, MU, and Wiscy to wipe their feet on their way to the CFB playoff
So they are here in order to boost the stats of the B1G East powers, thus increasing the draft stock of their players?
-
Does anyone have any idea as to whether the PTBs at Rutgers are interested in Football (and athletics)?
If they are, that could matter, and they might shell out to get a decent coach at some point. They should be able to be a 7-5 kind of program at some point, I think.
The thing is that as far as fan interest is concerned, I'm not sure it would matter. Rutgers has some fans, I saw a bunch at their stadium a few years ago, at their BB arena not long ago, and in NYC for the B1G BB tournament. Those are the die-hards. They are showing up and cheering for generally bad teams.
If Rutgers magically became a CFP contender they would add a whole bunch more fans, but I'm not sure that getting to consistently 7-5 would do much to move the needle for them.
-
Penn State provided the B1G with a heck of a lot more bad press than Rutgers.
It's a group effort we work together around here
-
It was pretty close for them, but also completely different scenarios.
Also unrelated.. Baylor. So now what?
Penn St., Rutgers, Maryland, Baylor
doesn't matter, no one is getting booted
money and politics
-
2017: 6 teams 3-6 or worse in-conference
2016: 5 teams 3-6 or worse in-conference
2015: 7 teams 3-5 or worse in-conference (8 game conference schedule)
2014: 7 teams 3-5 or worse in-conference
2013: 5 teams 3-5 or worse in-conference
further evidence that Urban Meyer should get the boot
-
Dana Holgorsen asked about Kansas having eight different defenders with interceptions. "That's the Rutgers factor."
-
It was pretty close for them, but also completely different scenarios.
Also unrelated.. Baylor. So now what?
Baylor shoulda got the boot, too. Just like PSU.
-
further evidence that Urban Meyer should get the boot
Wait.... wat?
-
Boot Baylor and Rutgers.
Everyone from the PSU scandal has been booted (or died) already.
-
Baylor shoulda got the boot, too. Just like PSU.
Completely different cases. One is an NCAA (and Title IX) matter and the other one was not. Both are criminal matters, however.
If you believe they are the same, I'm fine with that. I don't, and I'm fine with that too.
-
Completely different cases. One is an NCAA (and Title IX) matter and the other one was not. Both are criminal matters, however.
Not different in any meaningful respect. We're not talking about the NCAA booting Baylor or PSU, we're talking about the conferences doing it, as the morally correct and responsible thing to do. Your distinction on a technicality doesn't change the fact that both programs placed winning football games above the safety and well being of human beings.
That is in the fabric of the culture for both schools. Both shoulda been booted at the time.
-
We are starting to get out in the weeds a little bit.
-
We are starting to get out in the weeds a little bit.
Yeah.
-
We are starting to get out in the weeds a little bit.
Well, sort of. We're discussing actual, legitimate reasons to kick a school out of a conference, rather than something trivial like poor athletic performance as suggested in the OP.
-
So take an already dumb thread, and drive it completely into the ground?
Not bad.
-
Of course it was a stupid thread from the beginning. Hasn't stopped you-- or me-- from clicking it and chiming in.
-
Wait.... wat?
Urby keeps beating up on the hapless teams, they'll never get to 7 wins with him in the conference
-
Well, sort of. We're discussing actual, legitimate reasons to kick a school out of a conference, rather than something trivial like poor athletic performance as suggested in the OP.
there you go, apparently there isn't an actual or legitimate enough reason to kick a school out of a P5 conference.
There's a question.... What would it REALLY take to boot a school? What was the reason the last five times it has happened?
-
there you go, apparently there isn't an actual or legitimate enough reason to kick a school out of a P5 conference.
There's a question.... What would it REALLY take to boot a school? What was the reason the last five times it has happened?
Someone mentioned... maybe... Temple? Out of the Big East? As the last time it happened in a "major" conference?
Even so, I don't think you can draw any realistic parallels between what happened nearly 2 decades ago, to what might happen now. The massive state institution budgets that are built on the money that the P5 conferences are generating, have made it a far different financial and political landscape than it was even as recently as the late 90s.
And the proof is in the pudding. If the institutions we're discussing right now, didn't get kicked out for their misdeeds, then I'm not sure it would happen to anyone.
-
Urby keeps beating up on the hapless teams, they'll never get to 7 wins with him in the conference
He's not paid to stop tOSU
-
94 evidently there is a little tilt with the dirt burglars this Saturday in the Big D
-
@bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) :
I was toying around with the map and looked at my own and the surrounding zip codes here in Ohio. Note here that I live about two hours from campus so this area is not anywhere near close enough to have students living here and even as big as Ohio State is, it doesn't have THAT many alumni (like me) to explain this. That said, this is what I think of when you say that an area is "dominated" by fans of a particular school:
- 44256 (Medina): 70% tOSU, 5% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44233 (Hinkley-NE): 70% tOSU, 3% Akron, 2% Kent
- 44212 (Brunswick-N): 71% tOSU, 3% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44280 (Valley City-NW): 72% tOSU, 3% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44044 (Grafton-NW): 73% tOSU, 3% Michigan, 2% Akron
- 44253 (Litchfield-W): 72% tOSU, 3% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44275 (Spencer-SW): 72% tOSU, 3% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44254 (Lodi-SW): 72% tOSU, 4% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44273 (Seville-S): 70% tOSU, 6% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44215 (Chippewa Lake-S): 70% tOSU, 5% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44281 (Wadsworth-SE): 67% tOSU, 10% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44321 (Copley-SE): 63% tOSU, 12% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44333 (Fairlawn-E): 62% tOSU, 13% Akron, 2% Kent
- 44286 (Richfield-NE): 67% tOSU, 7% Akron, 2% Kent
-
@bwarbiany (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=19) :
I was toying around with the map and looked at my own and the surrounding zip codes here in Ohio. Note here that I live about two hours from campus so this area is not anywhere near close enough to have students living here and even as big as Ohio State is, it doesn't have THAT many alumni (like me) to explain this. That said, this is what I think of when you say that an area is "dominated" by fans of a particular school:
- 44256 (Medina): 70% tOSU, 5% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44233 (Hinkley-NE): 70% tOSU, 3% Akron, 2% Kent
- 44212 (Brunswick-N): 71% tOSU, 3% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44280 (Valley City-NW): 72% tOSU, 3% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44044 (Grafton-NW): 73% tOSU, 3% Michigan, 2% Akron
- 44253 (Litchfield-W): 72% tOSU, 3% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44275 (Spencer-SW): 72% tOSU, 3% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44254 (Lodi-SW): 72% tOSU, 4% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44273 (Seville-S): 70% tOSU, 6% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44215 (Chippewa Lake-S): 70% tOSU, 5% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44281 (Wadsworth-SE): 67% tOSU, 10% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44321 (Copley-SE): 63% tOSU, 12% Akron, 3% Michigan
- 44333 (Fairlawn-E): 62% tOSU, 13% Akron, 2% Kent
- 44286 (Richfield-NE): 67% tOSU, 7% Akron, 2% Kent
Totally agree. And that's driven by the fact that there really aren't any cities in Ohio that are true "magnet" cities for the surrounding states.
Granted, Ohio has more good-sized cities than Nebraska, but nothing on the order of a Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, New York, etc. So I would absolutely expect OSU to dominate [per your typical numbers/definition] Ohio, just the way that Nebraska dominates Nebraska.
The major "magnet" metropolitan areas, however, will always be diluted based on the fact that they draw from an entire region, not from a state.
-
Of course it was a stupid thread from the beginning. Hasn't stopped you-- or me-- from clicking it and chiming in.
Preeeeecisely.......
-
there you go, apparently there isn't an actual or legitimate enough reason to kick a school out of a P5 conference.
There's a question.... What would it REALLY take to boot a school? What was the reason the last five times it has happened?
Well another non-deviant, yet realistic reason a school might leave a conference is simply politics, no?
What if the SEC told the Alabama-Auburn-Georgia-Tennessee incestathon to go F- themselves - that they wouldn't play every year and handcuff the rest of the conference any further? Or what if the B10 added 4 teams and proposed a pod system, but Michigan and OSU were like "NOPE!"
GA Tech left the SEC due to politics. South Carolina left the ACC because they felt they were being treated unfairly.
So to change the question - what would it take in 2018 for a school to leave the B10? Not be kicked out, but to take its ball and go elsewhere?
-
So to change the question - what would it take in 2018 for a school to leave the B10? Not be kicked out, but to take its ball and go elsewhere?
an invitation/parachute to the SEC and equal TV revenue
-
^^carpetbagger^^
-
So to change the question - what would it take in 2018 for a school to leave the B10? Not be kicked out, but to take its ball and go elsewhere?
Probably a complete collapse of the conference and its academic alliance.
UChicago left the alliance after the three newbies came in.
-
That's right. No one is leaving the Big Ten, e.g., without either:
- abandoning football (*and* all sports?) altogether, OR
- having a massive and irreparable non-athletic tiff with the alliance - maybe stemming from research, medicine or ... politics(?)
In other words, we're stuck with Rutger forever.
-
Today was gonna be a good day. Thanks. Thanks A LOT.
-
You made your bed. You lie in it.
-
Money would be the primary and ultimate driver in programs changing conferences.
Any discussion without that has less of a point than pondering how to replace Rutgers. Money keeps them in, and it would take Mo' Money to drive them out, on both sides.
Money of course keeps ACC teams in tow as well.
The SEC perhaps is most vulnerable to teams leaving, the later additions anyway. I don't know if they have any exit penalties.
-
That's right. No one is leaving the Big Ten, e.g., without either:
- abandoning football (*and* all sports?) altogether, OR
- having a massive and irreparable non-athletic tiff with the alliance - maybe stemming from research or medicine
In other words, we're stuck with Rutger forever.
Can the rules be changed? What if the B1G comes back and says you were brought into this conference under the premises that you would add X ($50 million?) annual dollars to the conference. You are have failed at that assignment and as such you will continue to receive a reduced share until you can bring up your value to the conference.
-
Can the rules be changed? What if the B1G comes back and says you were brought into this conference under the premises that you would add X ($50 million?) annual dollars to the conference. You are have failed at that assignment and as such you will continue to receive a reduced share until you can bring up your value to the conference.
We'd definitely lose that law suit.
But I'd be SO HAPPY for the conference to pay Rutger the standard annual team share (in perpetuity) to not be on our schedules. And, let's be honest, that's the least we deserve for bringing them aboard.
-
What are the odds that Rutgers goes to a bowl, at least, in the next 5 years or so?
Near zero? Ten percent? Twenty?
Low bar, but a bar, and a bowl team is a quasi-decent mediocre team at least.
What about Illinois? Not long ago Purdue was flat awful.
A good coach turns them around, some, before he leaves.
-
If they don't fire Ash no matter what? I bet they are a 90% bet to get to a bowl in the next several years, doing so with their seniormost squad and one FCS win.
If they start over with new coaches? Eegads. 10%. Maybe.
-
You made your bed. You lie in it.
I didn't do anything. Oh well. Figurative comment, I'm sure.
-
You made your bed. You lie in it.
Golly gee, where did you get a line like that?
-
This thread reminds me of that phenomenon where one chicken gets sick, and the other chickens peck it to death.
-
who you callin chicken?
-
I use wisky a lot... mostly due to laziness.
now.. regarding what would it take for someone to leave the BIG... Unless someone dropped sports, I can't see it. The Gov't would need to outlaw conferences.
-
Bad speller?
-
Bad speller?
you don't deserve the h... or e (depending upon how you spell it)
-
... and my speak and spell needs new batteries, so....
-
Bad speller?
UNL Education
-
UNL Education
actually, I no... I was not.
btw... Whiskey is something I enjoy. Wisky is a team I dislike (read envious).
-
I drink whiskey (and whisky), mostly in the winter, unless I'm making something like a mint julep.
-
I do like some bourbon. I've tried most of the better known types, including Pappy of some version, and prefer Woodford to them all, especially at that price. The Woodford rye is quite good also, to me.
There are so many variations out now it's amazing.
NEW!!! Old Grandad 7 Year Old Bourbon Triple Distilled with a Hint of Cinnamon!
And yeah I know that couldn't be labeled Bourbon.
-
No exit penalty for leaving the SEC...because why would you?
-
I'm a scotch guy, but appreciate some good bourbon and rye.
I drink scotch whiskey all night long and dine behind the wheel
-
This thread reminds me of that phenomenon where one chicken gets sick, and the other chickens peck it to death.
Then you're the reason the Russian bots do their thing.
Hate a thread, but keep clicking it. Just..can't….stop...chiming...in....
-
у афро нет пола
-
I like Scotch whisky, and Irish whiskey, and Kentucky bourbon whiskey, and Tennessee sourmash whiskey, and rye whiskey.
I can take or leave Canadian blended whiskey.
-
I'm a scotch guy, but appreciate some good bourbon and rye.
I drink scotch whiskey all night long and dine behind the wheel
Dine behind the Wheel,what kinda cretin are you?I usually eat sammiches over the sink and chase it down with a tankard of suds.And Cindy thinks I'm not refined
-
у афро нет пола
dosvedanya
-
Dine behind the Wheel,what kinda cretin are you?I usually eat sammiches over the sink and chase it down with a tankard of suds.And Cindy thinks I'm not refined
They call him Deacon Blues
-
dosvedanya
We've been hacked.
-
Thread run course, perhaps?
-
I'd like to talk a little more about whiskey though...
-
Gonna have to ask my buddy what canadian fire water we were sipping in the spring
-
Dine behind the Wheel,what kinda cretin are you?I usually eat sammiches over the sink and chase it down with a tankard of suds.And Cindy thinks I'm not refined
over the sink is my preference, but sometimes I need to be mobile to save time
-
I'd like to talk a little more about whiskey though...
We got places for that, amigo. Any thread but this one. Heh.
-
They call him Deacon Blues
we won't mention the crimson tide
-
Gonna have to ask my buddy what canadian fire water we were sipping in the spring
VO. CC. It's all the same. In our age group.. F the Canadiens. And their damn air masses that screw up our summers.
-
We got places for that, amigo. Any thread but this one. Heh.
any thread?
With all due respect, I think this thread fits better than the "Nebraska (0-4, 0-1) at #16 Wisconsin Game Thread"
-
VO. CC. It's all the same. In our age group.. F the Canadiens. And their damn air masses that screw up our summers.
yup, I was raised on Canadian blended. Doesn't suck, will get the job done.
I still drink some Crown from time to time.
Black Velvet was my parent's usual.
Windsor Canadian was one of my favs long ago
not the best for sippin straight up, so I abandoned it.
-
we won't mention the crimson tide
Not on this board. I stepped right over that lyric
-
yup, I was raised on Canadian blended. Doesn't suck, will get the job done.
I still drink some Crown from time to time.
Forty Creek Barrel Select is what we had a while back i also liked Crown Royal Northern Harvest Rye - both were good sipping,not that they do a lot of it.Have to ask 94 about Weller evidently it's available in Texas.Bunch of rich uppity Bourbon/Whiskey snobs at an after Christmas Party they raved about it and Pappy van Winkle and how they shared the same distillery and batches or something like that
-
VO. CC. It's all the same. In our age group.. F the Canadiens. And their damn air masses that screw up our summers.
Loved Ontario & Quebec miss going up on those fishing trips.Beautiful lakes with perch,walleye and hell even the pike were good eating - getting the Y bones out were a bitch though.From our cabin you could take a trail back into the woods maybe a 1/4 mile there were quite a few ice cold springs coming out of the hills.It may sound strange but that water was incredible/delicious.Had a close encounter with a black bear there were a lot of blueberries growing back there and they loved them.Jesse Owens wouldn't have kept up with me.Weather was like here in October 60's-70's,most incredible night skies too
-
When I go to Canada western Ontario (NE of LOTW) almost annually it is a family run place (40+ years) the owners are a mix of Natives and Iowans btw, and those guys (the owners/guides) are so good at removing the Y bone, it makes me want to learn to butcher as a hobby. A northern is a damn good shore lunch. A little Crystal hot sauce, maybe lemon and some onion. My favorite lunches are shore lunches. BYOB and booze, as its expensive to buy to the north. We usually end up with a decent duty with the overage at the border.
I used to like Canadian whisky, but have 'grown up' I guess. Scotch is preferred if I'm not having gin (or brandy). I like a pretty broad spectrum, from the solid approachable Macallan and Glenmorangie to uber peaty Laphroaig (or other Islay styles).
-
Bunch of rich uppity Bourbon/Whiskey snobs at an after Christmas Party they raved about it and Pappy van Winkle and how they shared the same distillery and batches or something like that
as you may have ciphered by now.... I'm not rich or uppity
I prefer a good scotch for sippin. Blended is good for me. Plenty of derned fine singles, but like good wines, hard for me to remember their names.
Many more refined uppity bourbons these days and some are excellent.
A good glass of whisky on the rocks and a cigar out in the cool crisp fall air is a good way to enhance an evening with friends.
-
When I was young and fishing regularly with my father I was the nominated fish cleaner (butcher)
If the walleyes and Perch weren't hitting we'd catch pike for fun & eating. I could remove the Y bone and I've always thought they were delicious.
-
There's a guy around the corner from us that has an embarrassingly huge bourbon/whisky collection. It's stored in the basement, but basically packed away. He's a business consultant in the IN/KY/TN/OH area, and he does fairly well. A number of his clients are Bourbon outfits and they often gift him really nice bottles. Get this...he never drinks the stuff. He's got all kinds of rare bottles.
-
There's a guy around the corner from us that has an embarrassingly huge bourbon/whisky collection. It's stored in the basement, but basically packed away. He's a business consultant in the IN/KY/TN/OH area, and he does fairly well. A number of his clients are Bourbon outfits and they often gift him really nice bottles. Get this...he never drinks the stuff. He's got all kinds of rare bottles.
Sounds like a prime opportunity to become a good friend and help him reduce all that wasted space!
Weller is uppity? We have it here, it's tasty. Never thought of it as uppity though. Pappy sure is, but there are plenty that cost a lot less and taste just as good. Better, even.
I drink more Scotch than any other whisky/whiskey, and like anything else there are tasty choices at most price points. Typically I've found when it comes to liquor and wine, people that spend a lot more, are doing it for reasons other than flavor.
-
There's a guy around the corner from us that has an embarrassingly huge bourbon/whisky collection. It's stored in the basement, but basically packed away. He's a business consultant in the IN/KY/TN/OH area, and he does fairly well. A number of his clients are Bourbon outfits and they often gift him really nice bottles. Get this...he never drinks the stuff. He's got all kinds of rare bottles.
I could understand him keeping a dozen or two of the most rare bottles to brag about, but the vast majority would be enjoyed if he listened to me. Even if he doesn't enjoy it, he should trade to others that do, for things that he might enjoy. Such as game tickets, wine, cases of beer, cigars, golf clubs, USDA Prime Steaks, hookers, or SOMETHING!
-
Why would he trade for a hooker or someone who slices.Trade him some sharkwater
-
My brother in law knows him fairly well. He s working on the guy. Of course he can barter his oral surgery skills for whisky. I doubt he has much use for a securities lawyer.
-
Why would he trade for a hooker or someone who slices.Trade him some sharkwater
I'd give it a try. Don't let him know that sharkwater is the equivalent of colored/flavored Tito's
hell, maybe Tito's is his thing!?!?
-
Weller is uppity? We have it here, it's tasty. Never thought of it as uppity though. Pappy sure is, but there are plenty that cost a lot less and taste just as good. Better, even.
It's prolly not just hard to get their mitts on up here.Seems Weller gets shipped wholesale down to Texas.But since it has some old odd affiliation with Pappy these guys scramble to get it - some of them family members.It was the Holidays they feel bad and invite the black sheep so I listen to their regaling on procurement of desired Spirits.Oh and we were eating walleye caught in the fall
:Woot_Emoticon:
-
My brother in law knows him fairly well. He s working on the guy. Of course he can barter his oral surgery skills for whisky. I doubt he has much use for a securities lawyer.
Badge,Fearless and i can work him over,he'll prolly be laughing so hard he'll fall face 1st and need that oral surgery anyway
-
why in the heck wouldn't he trade for a hooker?
I'm bringing a hooker