menu
Logo
person
Bobcat Attack Menu
Logo
person
Ohio Football Topic
Topic: Maryland and Rutgers to the Big Ten
Page: 2 of 5
Mountain State Cat
General User
MSC
Member Since: 2/19/2005
Post Count: 114
person
mail
Mountain State Cat
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 2:15 PM
settings_applications edit_note
In no way do I ever see this happening, but I was bored and created my own conference detailed below for some funsies.

I wouldn't be shocked if the MAC stood pat until everyone went to 16-team power conferences. I really wouldn't.



The Great American Conference
West Division: Louisville, Western Kentucky, Middle Tennesee, Memphis, Houston, Tulsa, SMU, Troy OR Southern Miss.
East Division: Cincinnati, Ohio, Marshall, ECU, Temple, Toledo, Northern Illinois, UMass.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 2:19 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ozcat wrote:expand_more
Where will UC end up? IMO, they are not a Big 12, ACC or Big 10 level program.  

Wake Forest and Minnesota aren't those level of programs.  UC will not have a problem finding a new home.  Either will Louisville.

They are that level, since they are already locked in those conferences.  Additionally, level of program isn't all that matters.

OSU won't let UC in the Big 10.
The ACC has better growth options than UC and isn't going to look for that many schools having already grown quite a bit.
The Big 12 also has better growth options than UC, Louisville being on of them.
'
UC is in trouble.  Louisville should be alright.
Last Edited: 11/19/2012 2:20:49 PM by The Optimist
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 2:26 PM
settings_applications edit_note
C Money wrote:expand_more
ACC: Replace Maryland, GaTech, UVa, VaTech and maybe one other with UConn and idon'tknowthisishardmyheadhurts


LOL, can you imagine UConn, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Pitt sitting around saying "Great, we left the Big East for...the Big East with different wrapping paper. 
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 2:30 PM
settings_applications edit_note
In late August I heard from someone "close to the UD Athletic Director" that the 7 basketball-only Big East schools would join with Dayton, Xavier and Butler to form a new 10-team conference with St. Louis going to the MVC. He said it would be announced within 90 days. But then the Big East announced a new TV deal and I thought everything was settled. Makes me wonder if it is back on the table.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 2:33 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
In late August I heard from someone "close to the UD Athletic Director" that the 7 basketball-only Big East schools would join with Dayton, Xavier and Butler to form a new 10-team conference with St. Louis going to the MVC. He said it would be announced within 90 days. But then the Big East announced a new TV deal and I thought everything was settled. Makes me wonder if it is back on the table.


I heard the same in August as well at a celebrity golf tournament from a Marquette board member.  If I'm one of the basketball only schools in the BE I'm pulling the trigger yesterday on this.
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 2:47 PM
settings_applications edit_note
It will be interesting to see if New Jersey allows the Big 10 tax. I wonder how big of a piece that is to the business case for this move? 
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 2:55 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OUVan wrote:expand_more
ACC: Replace Maryland, GaTech, UVa, VaTech and maybe one other with UConn and idon'tknowthisishardmyheadhurts


LOL, can you imagine UConn, Syracuse, Notre Dame, and Pitt sitting around saying "Great, we left the Big East for...the Big East with different wrapping paper. 



Ah! I forgot about Notre Dame. Maybe they finally actually really have to join the ACC. Throw in Army, Navy, and maybe one more (Temple? UMass?) and they get back to where they wanted to be numerically.
LoganElm_grad09
General User
LE09
Member Since: 9/9/2010
Location: South Bloomingville, OH
Post Count: 934
person
mail
LoganElm_grad09
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 3:12 PM
settings_applications edit_note
The MAC would be foolish not to at least try to get UC and/or Louisville.
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 3:23 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
It will be interesting to see if New Jersey allows the Big 10 tax. I wonder how big of a piece that is to the business case for this move? 


The big10 tax?
sargentfan
General User
S
Member Since: 3/17/2005
Post Count: 917
person
mail
sargentfan
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 3:28 PM
settings_applications edit_note
mf279801 wrote:expand_more
It will be interesting to see if New Jersey allows the Big 10 tax. I wonder how big of a piece that is to the business case for this move? 


The big10 tax?


The increased cost to having BTN to be on basic cable rather than on a sports tier.
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 3:37 PM
settings_applications edit_note
mf279801 wrote:expand_more
It will be interesting to see if New Jersey allows the Big 10 tax. I wonder how big of a piece that is to the business case for this move? 


The big10 tax?


Someone may have the exact numbers but basically but the BTN subscriber fees for those in a Big 10 state are about $1/month more than those not in a Big 10 state. So everyone in Ohio supports the Big 10 schools with this tax. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers gives a potential 15M households where this tax can be implemented. 
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 3:48 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
It will be interesting to see if New Jersey allows the Big 10 tax. I wonder how big of a piece that is to the business case for this move? 


The big10 tax?


Someone may have the exact numbers but basically but the BTN subscriber fees for those in a Big 10 state are about $1/month more than those not in a Big 10 state. So everyone in Ohio supports the Big 10 schools with this tax. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers gives a potential 15M households where this tax can be implemented. 


So what does New Jersey have to allow? This sounds more like an issue between subscribers and cable companies (and the BTN). Its no different than TNT or TBS or ESPN or CNN or NFL-Network.
Pataskala
General User
P
Member Since: 7/8/2010
Location: At least six feet away from anybody else
Post Count: 9,465
person
mail
Pataskala
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 3:53 PM
settings_applications edit_note
The Optimist wrote:expand_more
Where will UC end up? IMO, they are not a Big 12, ACC or Big 10 level program.  

Wake Forest and Minnesota aren't those level of programs.  UC will not have a problem finding a new home.  Either will Louisville.

They are that level, since they are already locked in those conferences.  Additionally, level of program isn't all that matters.

OSU won't let UC in the Big 10.
The ACC has better growth options than UC and isn't going to look for that many schools having already grown quite a bit.
The Big 12 also has better growth options than UC, Louisville being on of them.
'
UC is in trouble.  Louisville should be alright.


If it matters, and I know it does to quite a few school presidents and conference commissioners, Cincy is the 35th largest TV market; L'ville is 48th.  That should be enough to swing some.  SEC doesn't need them, with UK just down the road.  Big 12 and ACC might, especially since the ACC will be losing the DC-Balmur market.  And they offer a close rivalry for WVU, which would interest the Big 12.  Plus they bring competitive teams in both football and men's b-ball.  I think they would get in before some others.
Ozcat
General User
Member Since: 1/4/2005
Location: Gahanna, OH
Post Count: 820
mail
Ozcat
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:25 PM
settings_applications edit_note
LoganElm_grad09 wrote:expand_more
The MAC would be foolish not to at least try to get UC and/or Louisville.

It's a great thought.  But it's never gonna happen.


Rumblings still abound.  I'm hearing now the B1G may not stop until they hit 20.  I'm not sure I completely buy it, but apparently Delaney is downright pissed off at Notre Dame and is hellbent on destroying the conference they're kinda/sorta heading to.  Sounds like many of the ACC schools are pissed off about the Notre Dame deal anyway, and I'm hearing that there are talks with Texas (who's Longhorn network is not working out at all - and allegedly highly interested in the $$ that B1G membership would bring) and Florida State, along with Georgia Tech and Virginia.

Who knows what to make out of all of it at this point, but it's fairly obvious that the B1G wants media market and AAU membership.


Somebody said it during the last round of all this, but the stability of the MAC, in my opinion, has been beneficial during this mess.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:28 PM
settings_applications edit_note
LoganElm_grad09 wrote:expand_more
The MAC would be foolish not to at least try to get UC and/or Louisville.


Unless we are ready to step up financially there is no way either would consider the MAC.  They might consider pairing up with some MAC teams that are looking to move up but I can't see either looking at the MAC as it stands now.
OUVan
General User
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Location: Bethesda, MD
Post Count: 5,580
mail
OUVan
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
Someone may have the exact numbers but basically but the BTN subscriber fees for those in a Big 10 state are about $1/month more than those not in a Big 10 state. So everyone in Ohio supports the Big 10 schools with this tax. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers gives a potential 15M households where this tax can be implemented. 


We already have it in Maryland.  I actually end up watching it quite a bit since so many MAC schools (and other mids) play the B1G. 
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:38 PM
settings_applications edit_note
mf279801 wrote:expand_more
It will be interesting to see if New Jersey allows the Big 10 tax. I wonder how big of a piece that is to the business case for this move? 


The big10 tax?


Someone may have the exact numbers but basically but the BTN subscriber fees for those in a Big 10 state are about $1/month more than those not in a Big 10 state. So everyone in Ohio supports the Big 10 schools with this tax. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers gives a potential 15M households where this tax can be implemented. 


So what does New Jersey have to allow? This sounds more like an issue between subscribers and cable companies (and the BTN). Its no different than TNT or TBS or ESPN or CNN or NFL-Network.


The cable companies have to approve the subscriber fees. The BTN plays hardball and says no BTN for you until you agree. Then, they wait for public/lawmaker outcry to force cable/satellite to concede. It eventually gets passed on to the consumer via higher cable/satellite rates. So basically there needs to be a public outcry in NY/NJ that forces the cable/satellite providers' hands. They have had a rough time getting Yankees and Knicks rates approved so this might not be easy.
Ohio69
General User
O69
Member Since: 12/20/2004
Post Count: 3,124
person
mail
Ohio69
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
And the SEC just keeps giggling. 

I don't see how Rutgers can pay $50 million to leave the Big East.  Or Uconn if it is ever invited to the ACC for that matter.
Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:39 PM
settings_applications edit_note
OUVan wrote:expand_more
Someone may have the exact numbers but basically but the BTN subscriber fees for those in a Big 10 state are about $1/month more than those not in a Big 10 state. So everyone in Ohio supports the Big 10 schools with this tax. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers gives a potential 15M households where this tax can be implemented. 


We already have it in Maryland.  I actually end up watching it quite a bit since so many MAC schools (and other mids) play the B1G. 


I think a lot of states do. The question is how much in subscriber fees are you paying now vs. in the future.
C Money
General User
Member Since: 8/28/2010
Post Count: 3,420
mail
C Money
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 4:44 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ozcat wrote:expand_more

Rumblings still abound.  I'm hearing now the B1G may not stop until they hit 20.  I'm not sure I completely buy it, but apparently Delaney is downright pissed off at Notre Dame and is hellbent on destroying the conference they're kinda/sorta heading to.  Sounds like many of the ACC schools are pissed off about the Notre Dame deal anyway, and I'm hearing that there are talks with Texas (who's Longhorn network is not working out at all - and allegedly highly interested in the $$ that B1G membership would bring) and Florida State, along with Georgia Tech and Virginia.


Not doubting that Delaney is college football's Dr. Doom/Lex Luther/Hollywood Hogan, but, ummmmmm....Does he realize that no matter how many teams he adds, the BCS national championship > the B1G championship?
mf279801
General User
M279801
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Newark, DE
Post Count: 2,486
person
mail
mf279801
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 5:07 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ted Thompson wrote:expand_more
It will be interesting to see if New Jersey allows the Big 10 tax. I wonder how big of a piece that is to the business case for this move? 


The big10 tax?


Someone may have the exact numbers but basically but the BTN subscriber fees for those in a Big 10 state are about $1/month more than those not in a Big 10 state. So everyone in Ohio supports the Big 10 schools with this tax. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers gives a potential 15M households where this tax can be implemented. 


So what does New Jersey have to allow? This sounds more like an issue between subscribers and cable companies (and the BTN). Its no different than TNT or TBS or ESPN or CNN or NFL-Network.


The cable companies have to approve the subscriber fees. The BTN plays hardball and says no BTN for you until you agree. Then, they wait for public/lawmaker outcry to force cable/satellite to concede. It eventually gets passed on to the consumer via higher cable/satellite rates. So basically there needs to be a public outcry in NY/NJ that forces the cable/satellite providers' hands. They have had a rough time getting Yankees and Knicks rates approved so this might not be easy.


Fine, but thats not a tax. A tax is levied by a government. And in today's fractured media market (cable, satellite, fios) even the cable company's monopoly ain't what it used to be. Likewise, the adoption of these increased rates by various cable companies that operate in the state is hardly a prerequisite of the big10's invite. I'd also point out that $1/month is about a third of the cost that the NFLnetwork charges cable companies, so its not like the big10 network is the only one that does this kinda thing.

I agree that the goal in inviting Rutgers and Maryland into the Big10 is to get the BTN added to the standard (i.e. channels 1-99) package of cable subscribers in the NYC and maryland areas, but its not a tax, and i view it was WAAAAY less nefarious than NFLnetwork's similar activities.
Ozcat
General User
Member Since: 1/4/2005
Location: Gahanna, OH
Post Count: 820
mail
Ozcat
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 5:18 PM
settings_applications edit_note

I'm not a huge Delaney fan.  I think that Rutgers and Maryland from an athletic standpoint bring almost nothing to the B1G (in less you're a huge lacrosse fan).

However, one thing that Delaney is PHENOMENAL at is making money for his conference.  Delaney is playing chess while the other conferences are currently still playing checkers.  Rutgers and Maryland are pawns.

I'm not sure who exactly is the king and queen, but I'm almost certain Delaney does.  Sounds like North Carolina could now be a target.  They fit the mold.


How does this affect the MAC?  It doesn't.  Although I do like the idea of trying to grab Marshall, ECU, maybe JMU and forming a new conference with some of the other MAC programs.  Who knows how this will work out.  Either way, I like the position Ohio is standing at this moment.

Ted Thompson
Administrator
Member Since: 11/11/2004
Location: MAC Play
Post Count: 7,948
mail
Ted Thompson
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 5:31 PM
settings_applications edit_note
mf279801 wrote:expand_more
It will be interesting to see if New Jersey allows the Big 10 tax. I wonder how big of a piece that is to the business case for this move? 


The big10 tax?


Someone may have the exact numbers but basically but the BTN subscriber fees for those in a Big 10 state are about $1/month more than those not in a Big 10 state. So everyone in Ohio supports the Big 10 schools with this tax. The addition of Maryland and Rutgers gives a potential 15M households where this tax can be implemented. 


So what does New Jersey have to allow? This sounds more like an issue between subscribers and cable companies (and the BTN). Its no different than TNT or TBS or ESPN or CNN or NFL-Network.


The cable companies have to approve the subscriber fees. The BTN plays hardball and says no BTN for you until you agree. Then, they wait for public/lawmaker outcry to force cable/satellite to concede. It eventually gets passed on to the consumer via higher cable/satellite rates. So basically there needs to be a public outcry in NY/NJ that forces the cable/satellite providers' hands. They have had a rough time getting Yankees and Knicks rates approved so this might not be easy.


Fine, but thats not a tax. A tax is levied by a government. And in today's fractured media market (cable, satellite, fios) even the cable company's monopoly ain't what it used to be. Likewise, the adoption of these increased rates by various cable companies that operate in the state is hardly a prerequisite of the big10's invite. I'd also point out that $1/month is about a third of the cost that the NFLnetwork charges cable companies, so its not like the big10 network is the only one that does this kinda thing.

I agree that the goal in inviting Rutgers and Maryland into the Big10 is to get the BTN added to the standard (i.e. channels 1-99) package of cable subscribers in the NYC and maryland areas, but its not a tax, and i view it was WAAAAY less nefarious than NFLnetwork's similar activities.


Sorry, I've always heard it referred to as the Big 10 tax. Never meant to imply it was an actual tax. It's just then when people get on the MAC for subsidizing athletics with student fees I think it should be noted that we all subsidize the Big 10. Like you, I would like to be able to go a la carte on my cable bill.

I don't agree that it's less nefarious than the NFL Network activities (see the barrage of Big 10 Network radio ads). It's in line with what various cable networks have done. Although the Big 10 Network has a special angle with Fox's 49% ownership stake. Given that News Corp owned DirecTV as well when the BTN was originally negotiated,  News Corp could take a loss on the DirecTV fees in order to pressure the cable companies to pay up. 
D.A.
General User
DA
Member Since: 8/6/2010
Location: Georgetown, ME
Post Count: 1,198
person
mail
D.A.
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 5:45 PM
settings_applications edit_note
Ohio69 wrote:expand_more
And the SEC just keeps giggling. 

I don't see how Rutgers can pay $50 million to leave the Big East.  Or Uconn if it is ever invited to the ACC for that matter.


The founder of Under Armor is a Maryland grad, and I read a report that stated he is prepared to sell stock in UA to the sum of $50MM in order to pay the exit fee.
The Optimist
General User
Member Since: 3/16/2007
Location: CLE
Post Count: 5,611
mail
The Optimist
mail
Posted: 11/19/2012 5:53 PM
settings_applications edit_note
They won't have to pay 50 million.  That amount will not hold up in court.
Showing Messages: 26 - 50 of 104
reply
vertical_align_top
vertical_align_center
vertical_align_bottom
add_comment
chevron_backward
chevron_forward
MAC News Links



extra small (< 576px)
small (>= 576px)
medium (>= 768px)
large (>= 992px)
x-large (>= 1200px)
xx-large (>= 1400px)