I don’t buy UVA’s value at all. They have absolutely pitiful TV numbers, and that’s not changing with an invitation to the Big Ten.
Lets Talk Big 10 Expansion
- Thread starter PSU4U
- Start date
I think some posters are misreading the value of Georgia Tech. The Atlanta market is huge and it is a hot bed for college football. My daughter's family is in Alpharetta (a suburb) and a majority of the residents are transplants. I visit frequently, and in their development, Saturdays brings out a wide variety of college fans. So it is not just about GA Tech, it's about all of the college fans. I walk their dog, and I see flags for GA, Clemson, SC, LSU, OSU, Mich, Tennessee, Alabama, FL, NC, Duke and even Delaware. Not to mention Pitt. The BT needs a local player there.
GT is a sleeping giant. Some people are just short sighted in that they refuse to see beyond the current situation. That's not how big corporations look at things. A team like GT is an investment on future gains. Investment being the key word long term be applicable to the outcome. GT has 8 national championships so it can get done at GT with the investment. Love me some Rambling Wreck.
To take Cal (imo) something will have gone terribly wrong in Big 10 expansion efforts.
Stanford Utah ASU AZ CO KS are all on the list as I said but down the list however, they are on the list. Of that group Stanford and Utah have the best shots. Utah seems to think they have a good shot but down the road. Stanford gets in because of ND or (imo) they probably wouldn't make it either. Utah has big support from the 4 west teams that just came in. That lobby means something too, Stanford also but not as much as Utah. For CO it would be a tough clime for them when it came to the votes.
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree. It’s not short sighted, we just don’t agree with your assumptions.
It’s been claimed that Ga Tech will suddenly become good and capture the Atlanta market because now they’ll be playing Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St. That’s just a wild assumption not based on any facts.
Actually, it ignores the fact that for the past 35 years (or so) they’ve played Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia. That hasn’t suddenly vaulted them into respectability and it has not captured the hearts and minds of people in Atlanta.
It’s been said they’re in big market Atlanta. Well, see Rutgers and New York City. Neither will bring their big market city and the fallacy that they ‘just will’ is based on nothing other than opinion. It flies in the face of all experience with Rutgers/ NYC and flies in the reality that Atlanta is a UGA town (and wider SEC in general). Good corporations don’t repeat mistakes.
It’s just assumed that Ga Tech will suddenly be a good football team because they can invest the big ten money. See Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Maryland, etc. They all get lots of money, none have become powerhouses. Hell, even Nebraska with its great tradition and history is struggling big time. But Georgia Tech is suddenly, magically, going to be the exception? Sorry, I don’t see it.
Georgia Tech has 4 claimed national titles, (1917, 1928, 1952, 1990), and 3 unclaimed, (1916, 1951, 1956). So they would have been a great get around World War 1 and in the 1950’s but that was almost 75 years ago.
Their last national title was 1990 in the ‘lightening in a bottle’ year where they shared it with Colorado. Before that, their last official claimed title was in 1952- when the Korean War was still going on. Claiming that ancient success as proof they will do it now is just unrealistic IMO.
Investment is fine, but there are good investments and bad investments. Georgia Tech isn’t high on the list of good investments IMO, (but reasonable minds can disagree
).
Last edited:
I think there are a few things you're missing:I respectfully disagree. It’s not short sighted, we just don’t agree with your assumptions.
It’s been claimed that Ga Tech will suddenly become good and capture the Atlanta market because now they’ll be playing Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St. That’s just a wild assumption not based on any facts.
Actually, it ignores the fact that for the past 35 years (or so) they’ve played Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia. That hasn’t suddenly vaulted them into respectability and it has not captured the hearts and minds of people in Atlanta.
Why would anyone suddenly expect different with swapping Florida State, Clemson, and Georgia for OSU, PSU, and Michigan? ( In an area of the country that regularly bad mouths the Big Ten teams and has very little respect for them).
It’s been said they’re in big market Atlanta. Well, see Rutgers and New York City. Neither will bring their big market city and the fallacy that they ‘just will’ is based on nothing other than opinion. It flies in the face of all experience with Rutgers/ NYC and flies in the reality that Atlanta is a UGA town (and wider SEC in general). Good corporations don’t repeat mistakes.
It’s just assumed that Ga Tech will suddenly be a good football team because they can invest the big ten money. See Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Maryland, etc. They all get lots of money, none have become powerhouses. Hell, even Nebraska with its great tradition and history is struggling big time. But Georgia Tech is suddenly, magically, going to be the exception? Sorry, I don’t see it.
Georgia Tech unofficially has 7 national titles. 4 claimed, (1917, 1928, 1952, 1990), and 3 unclaimed, (1916, 1951, 1956). So they would have been a great get around World War 1 and in the 1950’s but that was almost 75 years ago.
Their last national title was 1990 in the ‘lightening in a bottle’ year where they shared it with Colorado. Before that, their last official claimed title was in 1952- when the Korean War was still going on. Claiming that ancient success as proof they will do it now is just unrealistic IMO.
In the 33 years since Georgia Tech’s title in 1990, they’re just over a .500 team, (220-188 (.539)). They’ve had 11 losing seasons in those 33 years. They’ve won more than 7 games only 10 times in those 33 years. (And all of this in what everyone claims is a very weak football conference).
Investment is fine, but there are good investments and bad investments. Georgia Tech isn’t high on the list of good investments IMO, (but reasonable minds can disagree
- The point isn't that they'd be swapping Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia for Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan; they'd be swapping the ACC brand for the Big Ten. There's a reason why Clemson and FSU are desperate to do the same, and it's because the gap between the B1G/SEC and the ACC/Big 12 will be much more meaningful moving forward. That alone will hoop boost their program moving forward
- Comparing Atlanta to NYC is apples-to-oranges because Atlanta is the capital of the south and produces more football talent than the northeast
- Again, comparing Georgia Tech to Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, etc. is flawed because those schools don't sit in one of the nation's hottest recruiting beds
True. No one is claiming the Big Ten brand isn’t better than the ACC brand.
The claim earlier was that now they’ll be playing OSU and Michigan rather than ACC teams like Wake and people in Atlanta will suddenly be interested in the upgrade compared to the ACC which will propel GT forward. It just ignored that Clemson, FSU, and Georgia were also on their schedule and it didn’t bring that interest or move them forward.
Clemson and FSU want out because of money gap, (and I don’t think anyone, even ACC diehards, really blames them). Maryland left the ACC for the Big Ten. Have they suddenly vaulted in standing with the new brand, money, etc? No. I just don’t see how you can assume Georgia Tech would.
Atlanta is a Georgia Bulldog town, followed by a scattering of other SEC teams and Clemson. Georgia Tech is an afterthought with regard to football in that city.
As for being a recruiting hotbed, Georgia Tech sits on that hot bed now. They are what they are. Suddenly becoming a member of a conference that is roundly mocked as inferior by locals in the South isn’t going to change that. The conference winning a national title with Michigan (albeit cheating) did help to temper some of that this year.
Last edited:
Then why hasn't anybody capitalized on it in the last 30 years?
Maybe you sell a few more non-GT tickets for people wanting to visit Atlanta for a road game, but GT wasn't a ratings draw when Paul Johnson had them winning the ACC. Much like any fanbase, if you win, people show up.
GT isn't taking recruits away from the current slew of big dogs who currently eat at that table. Adding in the Big 10 doesn't help them either.
Now if you want to say that because of population, they are a better take than others, by all means. It's just delusional to talk about 75 year old titles as if that means something.
I think Atlanta is probably more college centric for football than NYC, though you are correct they are much more UGA leaning. I think B1G & TV "braintrusts" are looking at a large market they can move into. Might take awhile to gain good market share but as one poster mentioned, there are transplants from across the university landscape. Who really knows? Still fun to speculate.I respectfully disagree. It’s not short sighted, we just don’t agree with your assumptions.
It’s been claimed that Ga Tech will suddenly become good and capture the Atlanta market because now they’ll be playing Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St. That’s just a wild assumption not based on any facts.
Actually, it ignores the fact that for the past 35 years (or so) they’ve played Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia. That hasn’t suddenly vaulted them into respectability and it has not captured the hearts and minds of people in Atlanta.
It’s been said they’re in big market Atlanta. Well, see Rutgers and New York City. Neither will bring their big market city and the fallacy that they ‘just will’ is based on nothing other than opinion. It flies in the face of all experience with Rutgers/ NYC and flies in the reality that Atlanta is a UGA town (and wider SEC in general). Good corporations don’t repeat mistakes.
It’s just assumed that Ga Tech will suddenly be a good football team because they can invest the big ten money. See Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Maryland, etc. They all get lots of money, none have become powerhouses. Hell, even Nebraska with its great tradition and history is struggling big time. But Georgia Tech is suddenly, magically, going to be the exception? Sorry, I don’t see it.
Georgia Tech has 4 claimed national titles, (1917, 1928, 1952, 1990), and 3 unclaimed, (1916, 1951, 1956). So they would have been a great get around World War 1 and in the 1950’s but that was almost 75 years ago.
Their last national title was 1990 in the ‘lightening in a bottle’ year where they shared it with Colorado. Before that, their last official claimed title was in 1952- when the Korean War was still going on. Claiming that ancient success as proof they will do it now is just unrealistic IMO.
Investment is fine, but there are good investments and bad investments. Georgia Tech isn’t high on the list of good investments IMO, (but reasonable minds can disagree
Home media market means very little in this era of Conference realignment. The criteria is current TV ratings and nothing else. GT makes as much sense for the B1G as Pitt, Syracuse, or BC, who all generate similar TV ratings. The B1G invited 4 PAC teams that averaged 2.21M tv viewers per game. GT averaged 766k viewers, which is less than Rutgers and would qualify as second worst in the B1G. If GT doubles their tv viewership they still would not be a viable candidate to join the B1G. It’s not happening, unless they are needed as a travel partner for FSU or Clemson.
Because no one was trying to create a nationwide ‘super league’ into recently, and even now it’s only the B1G. The SEC was never going to add them back because they already have Georgia, and GT wasn’t going make a lateral move to the Big 12.
With that being said, there are bigger fish that the B1G will go after in the south before the Yellow Jackets. FSU, North Carolina, and Texas A&M (yes, the Aggies) would all be in line first.
Irrelevant reason behind why they aren't a powerhouse who draws viewers and wins games.
Not exactly a "tug of war" when Fox simply will not pony up the $$ for Stanford unless the Domers want them as a partner.
The Pac ended up collapsing because its remaining Presidents and Chancellors had an inflated and unrealistic sense of self-worth.
ESPN actually came to the Pac first and offered them essentially the deal that the B12 ended up taking, but the Pac refused and countered with an offer that was substantially higher.
At that point, ESPN walked away and offered thar deal to the B12, and then CU saw the writing on the wall and bolted, which led to the rest.
Their former commish has gotten way too much of the blame for the implosion of the conference when it was primarily the result of what his "bosses" decided.
Stanford actually spends a decent amount on FB; they redid their stadium not too long ago.
Problem is, their alums are not as into FB (unless they're good) and like most other private universities, are spread out across the country.
They've actually recruited pretty well in both FB (albeit, not quite to the level when they were winning PAC championships) and BB; but the results on the field/court haven't reflected that.
Northwestern has many of the same issues as Stanford (scattered alumni base, high academic threshold for recruits, etc), but a lack of resources isn't one of them.
Don't know too many schools (private or public) which will have spent $2 Billion on new athletic facilities.
As for Dook, they have cut corners when it comes to academics for recruits.
BB recruits are pretty much at the NCAA minimum level (one former Dook player who ended up transferring to NU was surprised upon learning that it was expected of him to go to class) and one-third of recruits for FB just need to be at the NCAA minimum level.
Last edited:
While there is a higher % of the NYC pop that doesn't follow CFB, there still is a substantial # of people who follow it whether it be RU (who are fans) or other B1G alums living in the city, Domer fans or just casual fans who will watch the big-match ups on Saturday.
As for GT, it would be a long-haul investment, which have some skepticism over.
First, there are a good bit more B1G alums in the Bay Area than in the metro ATL and Stanford will get to play a greater no of its historical rivals and has a historical connection to playing B1G teams from time to time.
Even if things mostly turn the B1G's way with regard to picking up ACC programs, it would be GT having a historical connection to UMD, FSU and UVA.
Havong said that, only way Stanford gets an invite is if the Domers want them as a partner.
As for BC, their chance of getting an invite is lower than that for Pitt, which isn't much.
Last edited:
I certainly see why Stanford would be on the list and maybe KS because of basketball. ASU has the 10th largest media market, so I think they would be a shoo-in, plus they have AAU status. I would probably take CU as well. UA and Utah don't add all that much. UA basketball prowess is overrated and Utah will probably go back to being Utah once their HC retires (he has done a fantastic job there).
Utah is here to stay, and they intend to layout the dollars needed to keep them upward mobile in the future. Utah brings some things to the table that a lot of people don't consider.
But no matter because right now there are some things going on that is putting the Big 10 on hold where ACC expansion is concerned. I have been sitting on some info since Tue evening that I'm not ready to go public with but there is a bit of a dustup going on in the Big 10. I gave this info to one person who posts on the main board to insure there is record of it between he and I before anyone else gets info on it and one pod caster the other evening danced all around it.
There is way more to this than the following statement. The Michigan president along with a good number of powerful presidents is heading up a bit of a power group to ensure the presidents (the dog) are not being wagged by the (tail) media. There is a lot going on internally right now that I won't speak to at this time.
I have information from Tue eve that GT is #2 on the Big 10 presidents wish list UNC being #1. I won't give the full list at this time.
sPitt has way more support in the Big 10 than people can handle but it depends on what goes on with the Big 10's top choices as it does with teams to the west like Kansas Utah and others who want in.
There is a very real possibility the Big 10 strikes out for all their top choices in the ACC and that list is very different from what many on this board think.
There are financial opportunities being discussed in the Big 10 right now that would in certain situations negate the need for FOX ponying up the money in certain situations. Just saying.
GT is number 2 on the Big 10 presidents wish list. So, it is what it is.I respectfully disagree. It’s not short sighted, we just don’t agree with your assumptions.
It’s been claimed that Ga Tech will suddenly become good and capture the Atlanta market because now they’ll be playing Ohio St, Michigan, and Penn St. That’s just a wild assumption not based on any facts.
Actually, it ignores the fact that for the past 35 years (or so) they’ve played Clemson, Florida State, and Georgia. That hasn’t suddenly vaulted them into respectability and it has not captured the hearts and minds of people in Atlanta.
It’s been said they’re in big market Atlanta. Well, see Rutgers and New York City. Neither will bring their big market city and the fallacy that they ‘just will’ is based on nothing other than opinion. It flies in the face of all experience with Rutgers/ NYC and flies in the reality that Atlanta is a UGA town (and wider SEC in general). Good corporations don’t repeat mistakes.
It’s just assumed that Ga Tech will suddenly be a good football team because they can invest the big ten money. See Rutgers, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Northwestern, Maryland, etc. They all get lots of money, none have become powerhouses. Hell, even Nebraska with its great tradition and history is struggling big time. But Georgia Tech is suddenly, magically, going to be the exception? Sorry, I don’t see it.
Georgia Tech has 4 claimed national titles, (1917, 1928, 1952, 1990), and 3 unclaimed, (1916, 1951, 1956). So they would have been a great get around World War 1 and in the 1950’s but that was almost 75 years ago.
Their last national title was 1990 in the ‘lightening in a bottle’ year where they shared it with Colorado. Before that, their last official claimed title was in 1952- when the Korean War was still going on. Claiming that ancient success as proof they will do it now is just unrealistic IMO.
Investment is fine, but there are good investments and bad investments. Georgia Tech isn’t high on the list of good investments IMO, (but reasonable minds can disagree
That is very different than what is on Fox’s list, and there is no way that GT is on a top 20 expansion list for Fox or any list for Fox. It’s impossible, they generate little viewers and revenue. The addition of GT would cause per capita income in the conference to decline. In the end there is no college president in the conference that is agreeing to decrease revenue for their school.
