Post your guesses for conference realignment

Home ▸ Archive ▸ College Sports ▸ Post your guesses for conference realignment
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 28, 2011 8:13 AM
Also, I've mentioned this often, the Big 10 doesn't need to expand. It will only take programs that help its brand, they already have the tv market.

These two programs are Texas and Notre Dame. Not Rutgers and its non-NYC base. It isn't going to make people in the Bronx and Queens who don't watch college football now start watching it.
Oct 28, 2011 8:13am
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Oct 28, 2011 8:29 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;947979 wrote:1) The Big 10 already has the NY market
Lol what?! Just because there are some Big 10 fans in a city doesn't mean that conference "has" that market.

Did you not see my post earlier in this thread about % of NY's fans being Rutgers fans? It was more than Syracuse, UCONN, ND, and PSU combined.

Why does Jim Delany constantly say he wants to get into the NY market, if the B1G already has it?!
Oct 28, 2011 8:29am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 28, 2011 8:38 AM
Because Ohio St. and Michigan get ABC (network TV - not cable), when is the last time Rutgers got an the NYC affiliate ABC game over those programs? Never. If there was a value to the Rutgers non-existent fanbase in Rutgers, they would already have dibs.

The point is NYC isn't a college football city. It is largely Hispanic and other "minority" groups that don't care at all about college football. They 't won't care anymore about a sport they don't care about because a team 40 miles away in another state is part of a new conference. To the extent there is a college football market in NYC, the Big 10 already does very well. Adding Rutgers won't help at all.
Oct 28, 2011 8:38am
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Oct 28, 2011 8:58 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;947993 wrote:Adding Rutgers won't help at all.
I hope that's just an exaggeration on your part..becuase that's just incredibly stupid.

And btw, tomorrow's game is on ABC (network TV-not cable)
Oct 28, 2011 8:58am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 28, 2011 9:11 AM
If it wasn't stupid to add Rutgers, the ACC would have invited him them over Pitt and/or Syracuse don't ya think? Do you think the Big 10 will take a program the ACC didn't even want in their first go round? The Big 10 isn't a sloppy seconds league. The ACC could still extend an invite to Rutgers/UConn, but there aren't many ACC fans excited about it. Why would fans of Big 10 schools want them?

I know you work for them, but you can't be this ignorant of the NY metro demographics, can you?

Rutgers doesn't help the Big 10 in any way shape or form, it could help the ACC just to solidify the geographic region and in minor sports. But that is it.

Rutgers could play Syracuse 100 times on a Saturday, and 100 times the ABC affiliate will show Ohio St./Michigan over them, because New York doesn't have a local market.
Oct 28, 2011 9:11am
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Oct 28, 2011 9:17 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;947979 wrote:1) The Big 10 already has the NY market, Penn. St., Michigan, Ohio St., etc. are ALREADY on tv, typically ABC, not ESPN.
Again, honest question, just trying to understand how it all works (versus my understanding with limited knowledge). The ABC/ESPN games are already accounted for financially as part of the overall package between the conference and the networks, right? Isn't the relevance to the B1G and whatever new markets they might venture into (forget Rutgers for a moment), a matter of how much more they can get for the network itself IF they are part of the basic package in that market? For example, if the B1G charges $X for access to the network in the NYC market right now and they reach Y number of TVs, doesn't increasing that Y number either/both a) increase what they can charge (add to $X) or b) multiply the number that pays $X (indirectly)?

I was under the belief that ratings = advertising dollars, but that the exposure (number of TVs reached) relates more to what the cable company would pay for the channel.

Side note - the discussion isn't just about the B1G and Rutgers. The B1G is in a position where they don't need to expand. There has also been talk about Rutgers going to the ACC - are they an attractive choice to that conference when it comes to expanding markets (I know there's an opinion that Syracuse accomplished that for the ACC).
Oct 28, 2011 9:17am
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Oct 28, 2011 9:23 AM
Ha, I was looking at an old page - didn't see your comments on that already.
Oct 28, 2011 9:23am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 28, 2011 9:25 AM
"Isn't the relevance to the B1G and whatever new markets they might venture into (forget Rutgers for a moment), a matter of how much more they can get for the network itself IF they are part of the basic package in that market? "

Perhaps, but if I'm Cablevision or TWC my argument is why should our subscribers for basic packages have to pay for the additional costs for a channel the vast majority won't use and the ones that would use can already order in a sports package? Fans of the top programs (again Ohio St., Michigan, Penn St.) don't need to worry since the super-super majority of their games are already on ABC/ESPN family. There were were very few OSU games I didn't get from '99 to '06 while we lived in the area on network/basic. Heck, even the San Jose St. game was on ESPN back in '02.
Oct 28, 2011 9:25am
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Oct 28, 2011 10:25 AM
The B1G is in a position where they don't need to expand.
I would agree with that...it seems to me that expansion to a 14 team league would be kind of ponderous. Be a very awkward schedule if you try to keep rivalry games intact.
Oct 28, 2011 10:25am
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Oct 28, 2011 11:26 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;948021 wrote:If it wasn't stupid to add Rutgers, the ACC would have invited him them over Pitt and/or Syracuse don't ya think? Do you think the Big 10 will take a program the ACC didn't even want in their first go round? The Big 10 isn't a sloppy seconds league. The ACC could still extend an invite to Rutgers/UConn, but there aren't many ACC fans excited about it. Why would fans of Big 10 schools want them?
Umm, by that logic, the ACC must not want Texas or Notre Dame, because why would they take Pitt and/or Syracuse over them?!

I realize the B1G isn't a sloppy seconds league; I'm not saying Rutgers is some huge golden addition. My stance is and has always been that if a conference NEEDS to add a member (aka, they take ND, and need a 14th team), Rutgers would be a solid addition from a business standpoint. Again, why would the B1G keep saying they want to dip into the NY market if they were already in it?

Link to where ACC fans wouldn't be excited about adding UCONN/RU?

Manhattan Buckeye;948021 wrote:Rutgers doesn't help the Big 10 in any way shape or form, it could help the ACC just to solidify the geographic region and in minor sports. But that is it.

Rutgers could play Syracuse 100 times on a Saturday, and 100 times the ABC affiliate will show Ohio St./Michigan over them, because New York doesn't have a local market.
Wow, Michigan/OSU would be showed over RU/Syracuse...No way!!!!

No F'n shit that game would be showed first, that's one of the better games every year. That's like saying Jessica Beil isn't attractive because she's not hotter than Scarlett Johanssen.

I really don't believe you think Rutgers wouldn't help AT ALL for the B1G. I admit, it's not a great addition. But to say it wouldn't help the B1G at all is just retarded. You're making me out to be some Rutgers apologist...I'm not. But when someone says they wouldn't help a conference in any way, shape, or form, I'm going to call them out on a stupid comment.
Oct 28, 2011 11:26am
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 28, 2011 12:19 PM
Is it early Friday on the east coast?

I understand your predicament, but you need to get a grip.

You aren't an apologist, you're an employee. And your employer needs to be smart.

Rutgers needs to be have a plan, the Big East is done. Focus on the ACC, that is where the future is for this program.
Oct 28, 2011 12:19pm
ts1227's avatar

ts1227

Senior Member

12,319 posts
Oct 28, 2011 12:56 PM
WVU has officially been accepted to the Big 12 now, with all parties involved reporting it. Louisville is left out.

Also, the Big 12 and WVU mention them in there for 2012, Big East says 27 months. Should be an interesting negotiation. Big 12 also mentions the 10 schools they plan to have in 2012, and it doesn't include Mizzou, so they just want them to leave at this point.
Oct 28, 2011 12:56pm
Mulva's avatar

Mulva

Senior Member

13,650 posts
Oct 28, 2011 1:21 PM
Big 12 staying at 10 = Texas wins again.
Oct 28, 2011 1:21pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Oct 28, 2011 1:45 PM
Manhattan Buckeye;948272 wrote:Is it early Friday on the east coast?

I understand your predicament, but you need to get a grip.

You aren't an apologist, you're an employee. And your employer needs to be smart.

Rutgers needs to be have a plan, the Big East is done. Focus on the ACC, that is where the future is for this program.
Lol what????

I'm not having this conversation as an employee. I'm having it as a fan of both college football and Rutgers. It's a simple conversation, nothing more nothing less.
Oct 28, 2011 1:45pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Oct 28, 2011 10:13 PM
I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses with this comment:

"Umm, by that logic, the ACC must not want Texas or Notre Dame, because why would they take Pitt and/or Syracuse over them?!"

What logic is that? They never had a shot with Texas or Notre Dame. The ACC would do flipflops through the streets to have either of them.

The fact is they did take Pitt/Cuse over Rutgers.

The Big 10 isn't going to expand for the sake of expansion. They've expanded twice in decades with PENN STATE AND NEBRASKA. Rutgers is no where close to this level.
Oct 28, 2011 10:13pm
SportsAndLady's avatar

SportsAndLady

Senior Member

35,632 posts
Oct 29, 2011 10:06 AM
Manhattan Buckeye;948747 wrote:I think you need to stop throwing stones in glass houses with this comment:

"Umm, by that logic, the ACC must not want Texas or Notre Dame, because why would they take Pitt and/or Syracuse over them?!"

What logic is that? They never had a shot with Texas or Notre Dame. The ACC would do flipflops through the streets to have either of them.
Haha, you are making this conversation into SERIOUS BUSINESS. I'm just having a conversation as a fan/nobody. "throw stones in a glass house" lol stfu

The logic is that you said "the ACC took Pitt/Cuse, so that means they didn't want Rutgers" so I said that must mean they didn't want ND or Texas, becuase that's the SAME logic you just used. Don't give me the "well ND/Texas didn't want to go there" How do you know? Are you Mark Emmert? Do you sit in on the meetings? No you don't, so don't throw out blanket statements to prove your point.

Manhattan Buckeye;948747 wrote:The Big 10 isn't going to expand for the sake of expansion. They've expanded twice in decades with PENN STATE AND NEBRASKA. Rutgers is no where close to this level.


Yes, I know this..and I've said in this whole debate that the only way Rutgers would be looked at by the B1G is if they took ND. AKA, if the B1G wanted to expand. Derp.
Oct 29, 2011 10:06am
Little Danny's avatar

Little Danny

Senior Member

4,288 posts
Nov 7, 2011 11:06 PM
BYU to the Big East?

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/11/big_easts_next_football_expans.html


Lots of discussion out there about the Big East forming an eastern division of the five remaining Big East schools and schools on the west (BYU, Boise, AF, SMU, Houston). UCF and Navy in for the ride as well.
Nov 7, 2011 11:06pm
E

enigmaax

Senior Member

4,511 posts
Nov 8, 2011 5:06 AM
Little Danny;962780 wrote:BYU to the Big East?

http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/11/big_easts_next_football_expans.html


Lots of discussion out there about the Big East forming an eastern division of the five remaining Big East schools and schools on the west (BYU, Boise, AF, SMU, Houston). UCF and Navy in for the ride as well.
I've read (don't remember where now) that Louisville would be the other school in the west division.

How much does it suck to be Utah now? If they'd waited one more year, they likely could've kept up their facade of being a top program.
Nov 8, 2011 5:06am
ytownfootball's avatar

ytownfootball

Bold faced liar...

6,978 posts
Nov 8, 2011 5:51 AM
enigmaax;962978 wrote: they likely could've kept up their facade of being a top program.
...fitting terminology for the entire Big East.
Nov 8, 2011 5:51am
Sykotyk's avatar

Sykotyk

Senior Member

1,155 posts
Nov 8, 2011 8:09 AM
Before, any conference realignment idea I had made sense. Now with Missouri and Texas A&M to the SEC, WVU to the Big XII, etc, it's just a jumbled mess. I just hope the Big Ten knows what they're doing. I always thought Missouri would be a great fit. But, oh well.

The Big XII-II and the Big Least are going to be fighting over scraps and will have no geographic construct to them. They'll just be whatever halfway decent teams that couldn't make the four other leagues getting jumbled in.

But, with the Big XII getting WVU, they've got to go after Louisville and Cincinnati.

That would give them, Texas, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, Louisville, Cincinnati, and West Virginia.


The Big east leaves the reservation and take Army/Navy, BYU, Boise State, SMU, Houston, Central Florida, Air Force, and maybe Colorado State and Temple.

UConn, Rutgers, Temple, Army, Navy, BYU, Boise State, SMU, Houston, Central Florida, Air Force, and Colorado State.

It doesn't make sense and is a joke. But, this whole realignment fiasco is turning into one.
Nov 8, 2011 8:09am
swoosh's avatar

swoosh

Account not Activated

303 posts
Nov 9, 2011 4:14 AM
I hate conference realignment crap. I though you should have 8 regional conferences with 10-14 teams. Then have a championship game of your 2 best teams of each conference and the winner gets a spot in a 16-team playoff format, with the top 8 being conference winners and the others being based by wins/losses, strength of schedule, and/or head to head. Each conference would get 1 big conference TV network, and for the national championship sponsors, it would alternate each year from the big BCS bowls we have right now. All this crap bout teams joining conferences when they're like 300 miles is outrageous. It's taking the fun out of college football. But only in a perfect world. Keep it regional!!
Nov 9, 2011 4:14am
swoosh's avatar

swoosh

Account not Activated

303 posts
Nov 9, 2011 4:17 AM
And I hate the new "Mountain USA" conference. Not close by far and 22 TEAMS. You gotta be joking...
Nov 9, 2011 4:17am