I disagree with your first sentence. Rutgers would have welcomed a Big Ten invitation even when the BE was viable. I know this from my involvement in the issue at that time.
The demise of the ACC foretold...
- Thread starter ecojew
- Start date
From conversations in the mid 80’s, over chicken patties and cheese fries in Brower, some of us thought the ACC could be the prize someday if there was going to be expansion from their original eight.
Never thought or considered the B1G at all….until State Penn became a member.
So glad it worked out the way it did.
Last edited:
Remember that Penn State joined the Big Ten in 1990. (Yes, it doesn't seem like that long ago.) .From then on, the Big Ten was the dream of our AD and administration, and the Big Ten was telling Rutgers that it needed its teams to be more competitive for us to be a candidate. That's why Greg Schiano was so important. I'm not that high on Schiano 2.0, but we'd be nowhere without him.
Those lunch time conversations I mentioned were in the mid 80’s. So at the time I don’t think all of the Rutgers oars were rowing “Upstream, red team!” in the same direction.
Greg 2.0 is a victim of his own inability to adapt to modern football. He's a fossil today. In his first go-around he was exactly what RU needed. For that I respect him, but in his 2nd go-around I'm honestly thinking he has 2 more years left before Hobbs inevitably fires him or Greg makes the decision to retire/walk away to avoid ruining his reputation here by being fired.
your last sentance is likely a combo of how it will go. More than likely Hobbs will have a private conversation with him giving him the option to retire, or be fired. And as much as I rag on 2.0, he deserves that level of respect
Yeah agreed. Greg 2.0 would be wise to take the golden parachute when that day inevitably comes and can even use NIL as the reason why he is stepping away as that would keep his reputation intact. Getting fired tarnishes his legacy and I don't think he wants that.
The ACC GOR goes to 2036. Shall we be placing the monies in an interest bearing account in the mean time
A
anon_ivydyf0amkzay
Guest
Unc and NC State are in the same school system…A&M and Texas are each in separate systems…BIG difference. Having said that, money seems to matter more…so WTFK…
Yes, UNC/NC State is parallel to Cal/UCLA -- where UCLA is going to the Big Ten and paying Cal money. So the decisionmakers will take into account the interests of both schools, but won't necessarily insist that the two do the same thing.Unc and NC State are in the same school system…A&M and Texas are each in separate systems…BIG difference. Having said that, money seems to matter more…so WTFK…
Yes, money matters more. I keep thinking of the Bob Dylan line from "It's All Right, Ma": "Money doesn't talk, it swears."
The way I believe it will play out.
UNC and NC State are part of the same system. Over on UNC boards, they believe NC State has to be taken care of if/when they leave the ACC. So, either the SEC takes them both (could happen but doubt it), or UNC goes to the Big 10 (better academics and saves their Olympic sports) and NC State goes to the SEC. In that case both are preserved and both are well off financially. Going to the Big 12 for NC State is not a real option.
you are a fking moron who just runs at the mouth not knowing dikThe ACC GOR goes to 2036. Shall we be placing the monies in an interest bearing account in the mean time
as I said, I'll up to 5k with a mod cause it's easy money
um.. A&M joined the SEC first.. Texas is supposed to join along with Oklahoma in 2024.
That said, Texas and A&M have a long historical rivalry. But Texas was pretty much a bully in the Big XII (got a bigger share of everything, iirc) and I was happy to see A&M get out from under them and, in many ways, surpass them as an SEC program.
I always felt the ACC was the more natural home... easier travel up/down 95 as well... all in the same timezone. I was shocked when the ACC seemingly took everyone BUT us.
Was really baffled until I thought about an effort to keep NYC an open TV market they could all share.. and how ABC/ESPN.. which then had the Big Ten as their premium TV partner for football.. how ABC/ESPN could then drag the NYC market into any "national" broadcast they would care to sell to advertisers.
I figured that ABC/ESPN figured that the Big East football conference would disintegrate when all its best teams left and Rutgers football might end up going the way of Villanova football and Temple football... disappearing... leaving a swath of college football-loving households with disposable income that the advertisers loved ready to consume any game they deigned to send them. No competition from any home teams.
The Big Ten really screwed that plan... and now ABC/ESPN's big football partner is the SEC.
What?? I know all of that. My post challenged the idea that Texas and A&M are aligned because of the sneak attack on A&M by Texas and the SEC.
What point are you trying to make?
e5fdny, I had the opportunity to meet then President Bloustein a couple of times while I was a student at RU in the early 80's. He told me that his vision was for RU to be in the B1G someday (I think he also made some public statements to that effect). It took a while, but he really laid the foundation for everything that came afterward.
Yes, Bloustein worked very hard to get Rutgers into the AAU, and it happened at about the time of his sudden death in 1989. Bob Mulcahy told me to 2000 that RU and the Big Ten were talking and that the Big Ten wanted our teams to be better. And the executive vice president (whoever followed Joe Seneca in that job) said to me and other University Senate members that the Big Ten was really the only conference that interested Rutgers.
People said the same about Oklahoma and OK State. NC State may be uniquely attractive because of the strength of football support compared with UNC.
However, this is all a moot discussion. UNC and NC State and the rest of ACC schools are stuck together bound to the GOR.
I'd argue that the Big East killed the Big East. Too many small catholic basketball schools ruined the future of a northeast conference led by Land Grant/Flagship state Universities.
I am thinking that Greg Swaim doesn’t understand what collusion is, and that there are laws against it.
I wont comment on the other schools, as we didn’t focus on them while tailgating
But while in Tallahassee this weekend for the spring game, there was a lot of optimism in the FSU side re the GOR, pretty much echoing the sentiments of this tweet
I agree - but maybe it was the other way around. 'Dave Gavitt of Providence led the formation of the Big East in 1979. The only land grant was U.Conn because Rutgers turned down the BE's invitation. There was no football in the BE until 1991. As it turned out of course, the conference couldn't sustain itself because it was half football schools and half non football schools. From our standpoint, the non-football schools killed the conference -- they would say it was we that killed it. As the Bible and Abe Lincoln said, "A house divided cannot stand."
In the post to which I responded you said:
"Is that why Texas was secretly negotiating with the SEC behind A&M’s back. Texas and the SEC blindsided A&M. "
Since you wrote it and did not read it without knowing what is in your head.. it reads like Texas left for the SEC first instead of saying A&M surprised Texas with its move to the SEC.
That is why teams wanted to leave the Big East. But ESPN advised the ACC on who to make offers to. That was made clear in some reporting done when they invited BC and not UCONN. The Catholic schools made us a target by trying to keep the power of the football schools at bay.... to keep control of the conference and make special deals that reward the basketball schools .
That is my idea that has no proof.. that the football contracts negotiated by the Big East sucked and ESPN made it up to the conference in the basketball deals. I think Miami figured this out and realized how the Providence Mob was holding back football.
I remember him saying “Big time” publicly a lot.
Who knew (I certainly didn’t - lol) he meant “B1G time” all along.
This makes sense timing wise as we were beginning to hear publicly Joe Paterno’s lament about “being on an island in a Midwest conference” whining.
But at that mid 80’s lunch table I don’t think any of us could have imagined it happening. And part of that is because of what I said earlier about everyone NOT rowing in the same direction…some wanted bigger, some wanted to stay the same and some even wanted smaller.
And I would imagine now in 2023 the latter two are either mostly gone or just ignored. No matter how loud they complain.
Last edited:
Though I would suggested your post was oddly worded, either way it supports your assumption that Texas and A&M are not as closely linked as others implied. I would say that both want to play each other regularly.. the season ticket holders certainly want it.. and that links them.
Last edited:
Great post. I agree with everything you surmised.
I thought YOUR post was oddly worded. Lolol! We are even. Go Knights!!
The word that I responded to was “aligned”, not “linked.” Two different meanings.
As I see it, they are linked, but they are not aligned.
May I say that in one of my very first posts on this site, back in about 2000 I suggested that the Big Ten would be the best conference for Rutgers because we are more similar to the other Big Ten schools than to the schools in the Big East. I was flamed for it, but finally someone posted, "It's OK, he's a fan!" Probably I was thought to be an ally of Dowling -- but Dowling undoubtedly hates that we're in the Big Ten.
Yes, Paterno did whine -- but he also said publicly that joining the Big Ten was a good decision for Penn State as a whole.I remember him saying “Big time” publicly a lot.
Who knew (I certainly didn’t - lol) he meant “B1G time” all along.
This makes sense timing wise as we were beginning to hear publicly Joe Paterno’s lament about “being on an island in a Midwest conference” whining.
But at that mid 80’s lunch table I don’t think any of us could have imagined it happening. And part of that is because what I said earlier about everyone now rowing in the same direction…some wanted bigger, some wanted to stay the same and some even wanted smaller.
And I would imagine now in 2023 the latter two are either mostly gone or just ignored. No matter how loud they complain.
For football (and sports in general) the fan base by and large wants the SEC
Culture, tradition, excitement, rivalries, huge followings, close road trips, business would be booming on game day weekends, etc.
Guys I was talking to are convinced it’s going to be the B1G for a variety of other reasons
One thing all Noles fans can agree on is we need out of the ACC like yesterday
$$ differential is too big right now and only getting worse. None of them seemed overly concerned that it’ll take more than 2/3 years and they don’t think GOR, though a big obstacle, is insurmountable
Last edited:
Retired911, came here about the time Nebraska was added. Lot of doomers when Nebraska was added and Rutgers was passed over (end of the world types). I related at the time, not to worry as Rutgers even in the east was the type of institution that matched well with the Big 10. Good academic school, AAU, land grant and a large research school that would fit well within the Big 10. The only real problem was poor sports BUT that could be fixed IF the administration would sink the resources into the Athletic Department (which they could with resources from the Big 10).
Also, with Penn State on an island in the east. It was just a matter of time before the Big 10 would expand in the east to help cement Penn State (should have happened earlier BUT the Big 10 some times is slow in acting). Delaney always wanted to go east, primarily into the SE.
A lot of talk about the inevitability of RU to the B1G in this thread.
All I know is that RU wouldn’t have been invited when they were if the proposed B1G-PAC12 OOC scheduling idea hadn’t fallen apart, and if RU hadn’t been added in time for the last TV deal, they might have been in trouble as the financial bar they would have needed to meet would have been higher.
For example, both Washington and Oregon would have easily met the grade for addition under the last TV contract, but they don’t under the new, much higher, contract number.