ADVERTISEMENT

What Things Would Look Like Had Penn State Not Joined The Big Ten

step.eng69

Well-Known Member
Nov 7, 2012
12,659
14,698
1
North East PA, Backmountain area, age 72
Answer??: JerBear is still the elephant in the room....joining the B1G or the ACC :mad:

What Things Would Look Like Had Penn State Not Joined The Big Ten
By Eli Moreta-Feliz Jun 29, 2016, 10:22a

usa-today-8976533.0.jpg

Aaron Doster-USA TODAY Sports

In a world where Penn State joins the ACC instead of the Big Ten, would things be much different today?

TweetShare on Twitter ShareShare on Facebook(15) PinPinterest 17 Comments
About a week and a half ago, we started a series looking into how things could have been different for Penn State if a certain loss didn’t happen. From playing in (and maybe winning) the national championship game in one sport, to sparking a string of national championships in another, there have been times where one looks back and justifiably wonders, “what could have been?”

Today we’ll be looking at a different type of “what if” scenario. Now that Penn State has been in the Big Ten for over 20 years, we have enough history to look at how things would have been different had this move not happened. Let’s get started.

The History
A few decades ago, a guy by the name of Joe Paterno saw that the landscape around college sports was changing. This change was catalyzed by the court’s decision to allow conferences to negotiate their own TV rights. Seeing the writing on the wall, Paterno tried to get Penn State into the Big East, but lost the bid by a single vote.

In the years that followed, Paterno tried to create his own conference composed of eastern teams. The initial schools in that conference would have been Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, West Virginia, Maryland, and Temple. Things were in motion until revenue sharing became an issue; certain teams wanted to keep football revenue but share basketball revenue, while others were willing to make sacrifices to get the ball rolling. Eventually the other schools chose to get deals that benefited their programs in the near term, and you know the rest.

This left Paterno with few choices on which conference to join: the Big 8 (which would later become the Big 12) and the Pac-10 (12) made little geographic sense at a time where geography mattered. That left us with the ACC, a conference with a few teams that had a long history with Penn State, and, of course, the Big Ten.

The Choice
Let’s get into the minds of the Penn State administration for a second. What benefits could the university as a whole get from joining the ACC? In terms of sports, there’s no denying that they were a premier basketball conference, with schools like North Carolina, Duke, Maryland, and NC State in the fold. Football was a different story. It wasn’t until Florida State, Miami, and Virginia Tech joined later in the process where one could seriously consider the ACC a football power. Clemson and Georgia Tech had been two of the few teams who had consistent success up until that point. In the 90s, competing with Florida State during its best years would have been fun.

However, Penn State most likely still has its down years yet to come in the early 2000s. By 2004, it would have shared the spotlight with both Virginia Tech and Miami, two schools that, at the time, were in better shape than Penn State. Contrast that with the situation in the Big Ten, and it’s hard to make the argument that Penn State wouldn’t find itself in a similar spot in terms of on-field perception.

In terms of academics, the ACC can’t match the level of prestige across the board. For example, every member of the Big Ten, with the exception of Nebraska, is a member of the AAU. In contrast, only Duke, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia, and Pitt are members in the ACC. Big Ten schools rank among the best schools in the country every year, whereas there is a big gap between the top ACC schools and the rest. Adding to this, the Big Ten offers an academic-version of itself (for lack of a better term)—the CIC. This committee ensure that Big Ten schools (and UChicago) continue to be at the forefront of academic research.

If none of these arguments are compelling enough, let’s use the one that convinced the administration: Money. The Big Ten has consistently been at the top when it comes to revenue, both for its athletic departments and for its research units. The Big Ten, yet again, holds the largest media rights package, at around $2.64 billion, when you add Fox, ESPN, and CBS’s offerings. Contrast that with the ACC’s current deal, which brings in about $20 million per school per year, and that’s a lot of money on the table.

Some may astutely point out that had Penn State joined the ACC, the conference would be in a more favorable bargaining position. While this is true, Penn State alone wouldn’t have been able to make up the difference in revenue currently present between the Big Ten and ACC. Penn State stands to make about 20 million more per year than all ACC schools, and even the best of estimates would put that figure well below what the school expects to bring in.

The last, and perhaps most important point is this: When the Big Ten looked to expand the second time, they looked to the ACC and whatever was left of the Big East. In a scenario where Penn State is an ACC member, they would have become one of the top schools the Big Ten would have targeted. So even in a scenario where Penn State joins the ACC and not the Big Ten, they could have very well ended up right where they are, but without the years’ worth of massive revenue accumulation.
 
That last part is true but I find that people don't apply that same reasoning to the scenario where the Eastern schools did form a conference back in the 70s or 80s. People say that if that happened then everything would look different today and there would be a strong, viable Eastern all sports conference. I don't get it Even if an all sports Eastern conference with PSU and Syr and BC, etc, etc, etc formed back in the 70s or 80s the Big Ten would still have come calling for PSU eventually and considering the money involved, PSU would have jumped.
 
The last, and perhaps most important point is this: When the Big Ten looked to expand the second time, they looked to the ACC and whatever was left of the Big East. In a scenario where Penn State is an ACC member, they would have become one of the top schools the Big Ten would have targeted. So even in a scenario where Penn State joins the ACC and not the Big Ten, they could have very well ended up right where they are, but without the years’ worth of massive revenue accumulation.
I disagree with the above from the article. The B1G was able to expand with Rutgers and Maryland because Penn State was already in the conference and created a bridge to the eastern seaboard. If Penn State was well established in the ACC where the majority of its alumni live, television rights for the ACC would have been higher across the board. There would have been no reason to jump ship and head to the B1G which, in turn, would have looked west for any expansion. With the bad marriage between the Big 8 and SWC, there would have been a good possibility of not just Nebraska in the B1G but also Kansas, Missouri and someone else to make it 14.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSUTENN1
ACC Road Trips >>>>>>>>>>>> Big 10 Road Trips

How about this notion, which people in general won't like probably. Considering that realistically the point of the conferences are for revenue sports, why don't non-revenue sports have regional conferences instead? Why should all the non-revenue sports have to travel long distances to play schools that are only in the same conference as them because of football?
 
I hate the f&^%$ing Big Ten. When the definitive book on PSU sports is written, this will prove to be the biggest mistake we ever made. This monstrous cluster*(ck of a decision proves that money is not everything.

I figure, if I sat down and tried to come up with something I like about the Big Ten, surely if I gave myself an hour I'd find something palatable, but I don't. I wish this goddamned conference had never existed to begin with. We have no business being in it, they don't want us in it, and I ****ing hate that we are in it.

Being associated with Michigan, with tOSU, with Delany, with Witvoet, etc etc etc, demeans us and covers us with shit. We should have never done it.
 
Replay officiating would have been delayed 10 years if we hadn't joined the b1g.

Doubtful. It was coming in other sports. We certainly were a catalyst--even an important one--no denying that. But it would not have taken 10 years. Once the technology and wall to wall coverage of a game from multiple angles came, it was just a matter of time.
 
Another idiot drinking the academic Kool-Aid. Day job: web developer for Macy's. Yeah, he's got a clue.

I've lived in a Big 10 town for 40 years now. They do take the academic connections of the conference seriously here--even if you don't--and always have. That's not to say that athletic programs have always been paragons of academics. But the schools themselves pride themselves on the connections and do take it seriously--and it may even be taken into account when research funding comes up. Universities always take money seriously. Otherwise they would have dumped the University of Chicago (or vice versa) a long time ago were it an empty shell.
 
I've never seen anyone make a convincing case for the ACC having been a better choice than the B1G.

If remaining independent wasn't an option (and most people would agree that it wasn't), the move to the B1G was probably the only viable option.

I'd be interested in seeing a reasonable argument otherwise (extra points for logic rather than emotion)
 
Answer??: JerBear is still the elephant in the room....joining the B1G or the ACC :mad:

What Things Would Look Like Had Penn State Not Joined The Big Ten
By Eli Moreta-Feliz Jun 29, 2016, 10:22a

usa-today-8976533.0.jpg

Aaron Doster-USA TODAY Sports

In a world where Penn State joins the ACC instead of the Big Ten, would things be much different today?

TweetShare on Twitter ShareShare on Facebook(15) PinPinterest 17 Comments
About a week and a half ago, we started a series looking into how things could have been different for Penn State if a certain loss didn’t happen. From playing in (and maybe winning) the national championship game in one sport, to sparking a string of national championships in another, there have been times where one looks back and justifiably wonders, “what could have been?”

Today we’ll be looking at a different type of “what if” scenario. Now that Penn State has been in the Big Ten for over 20 years, we have enough history to look at how things would have been different had this move not happened. Let’s get started.

The History
A few decades ago, a guy by the name of Joe Paterno saw that the landscape around college sports was changing. This change was catalyzed by the court’s decision to allow conferences to negotiate their own TV rights. Seeing the writing on the wall, Paterno tried to get Penn State into the Big East, but lost the bid by a single vote.

In the years that followed, Paterno tried to create his own conference composed of eastern teams. The initial schools in that conference would have been Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers, Penn State, Pitt, West Virginia, Maryland, and Temple. Things were in motion until revenue sharing became an issue; certain teams wanted to keep football revenue but share basketball revenue, while others were willing to make sacrifices to get the ball rolling. Eventually the other schools chose to get deals that benefited their programs in the near term, and you know the rest.

This left Paterno with few choices on which conference to join: the Big 8 (which would later become the Big 12) and the Pac-10 (12) made little geographic sense at a time where geography mattered. That left us with the ACC, a conference with a few teams that had a long history with Penn State, and, of course, the Big Ten.

The Choice
Let’s get into the minds of the Penn State administration for a second. What benefits could the university as a whole get from joining the ACC? In terms of sports, there’s no denying that they were a premier basketball conference, with schools like North Carolina, Duke, Maryland, and NC State in the fold. Football was a different story. It wasn’t until Florida State, Miami, and Virginia Tech joined later in the process where one could seriously consider the ACC a football power. Clemson and Georgia Tech had been two of the few teams who had consistent success up until that point. In the 90s, competing with Florida State during its best years would have been fun.

However, Penn State most likely still has its down years yet to come in the early 2000s. By 2004, it would have shared the spotlight with both Virginia Tech and Miami, two schools that, at the time, were in better shape than Penn State. Contrast that with the situation in the Big Ten, and it’s hard to make the argument that Penn State wouldn’t find itself in a similar spot in terms of on-field perception.

In terms of academics, the ACC can’t match the level of prestige across the board. For example, every member of the Big Ten, with the exception of Nebraska, is a member of the AAU. In contrast, only Duke, North Carolina, Georgia Tech, Virginia, and Pitt are members in the ACC. Big Ten schools rank among the best schools in the country every year, whereas there is a big gap between the top ACC schools and the rest. Adding to this, the Big Ten offers an academic-version of itself (for lack of a better term)—the CIC. This committee ensure that Big Ten schools (and UChicago) continue to be at the forefront of academic research.

If none of these arguments are compelling enough, let’s use the one that convinced the administration: Money. The Big Ten has consistently been at the top when it comes to revenue, both for its athletic departments and for its research units. The Big Ten, yet again, holds the largest media rights package, at around $2.64 billion, when you add Fox, ESPN, and CBS’s offerings. Contrast that with the ACC’s current deal, which brings in about $20 million per school per year, and that’s a lot of money on the table.

Some may astutely point out that had Penn State joined the ACC, the conference would be in a more favorable bargaining position. While this is true, Penn State alone wouldn’t have been able to make up the difference in revenue currently present between the Big Ten and ACC. Penn State stands to make about 20 million more per year than all ACC schools, and even the best of estimates would put that figure well below what the school expects to bring in.

The last, and perhaps most important point is this: When the Big Ten looked to expand the second time, they looked to the ACC and whatever was left of the Big East. In a scenario where Penn State is an ACC member, they would have become one of the top schools the Big Ten would have targeted. So even in a scenario where Penn State joins the ACC and not the Big Ten, they could have very well ended up right where they are, but without the years’ worth of massive revenue accumulation.
That "writer" senselessly wasted a lot of words

:)
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
I've lived in a Big 10 town for 40 years now. They do take the academic connections of the conference seriously here--even if you don't--and always have. That's not to say that athletic programs have always been paragons of academics. But the schools themselves pride themselves on the connections and do take it seriously--and it may even be taken into account when research funding comes up. Universities always take money seriously. Otherwise they would have dumped the University of Chicago (or vice versa) a long time ago were it an empty shell.


I don't doubt that the schools take academics seriously. Indeed I've seen few places and people that take themselves, in every way, shape, and form, as seriously as universities and their administrators do.

On the academic side, schools have "connections" that extend well beyond those that they have with members of their athletic conference. As for the University of Chicago, the CIC was formed twelve years after Chicago left the Big Ten. Why wasn't, say, Stanford and Hopkins invited in as well? And, fwiw, UIC, which outranks both UNL and IU in funded research by considerable margins, was sort of a member for twenty years before being shown the door. It's presence must have been unseemly, sniff, sniff.
 
Dandy Don's quote ("If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas") seems apropos here. Who the hell knows what might have happened?

FWIW, I think that the ACC (and the Pac 12, for that matter), are stronger academically.at the very top, but the B1G has considerable academic strength from top to bottom. The B1G does not have the weak sisters that both the ACC (e.g, FSU) and the Pac (e.g., ASU, WSU) have from the middle on down. It is what it is...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
I hate the f&^%$ing Big Ten. When the definitive book on PSU sports is written, this will prove to be the biggest mistake we ever made. This monstrous cluster*(ck of a decision proves that money is not everything.

I figure, if I sat down and tried to come up with something I like about the Big Ten, surely if I gave myself an hour I'd find something palatable, but I don't. I wish this goddamned conference had never existed to begin with. We have no business being in it, they don't want us in it, and I ****ing hate that we are in it.

Being associated with Michigan, with tOSU, with Delany, with Witvoet, etc etc etc, demeans us and covers us with shit. We should have never done it.

Yes, yes and yes. Why stay in a house where you're not welcome and treated like crap!
 
Is Arizona State poor? I was actually under the impression that ASU was a decent school and had really improved in areas like engineering. I would have though that maybe Oregon State was more towards the bottom?

"FWIW, I think that the ACC (and the Pac 12, for that matter), are stronger academically.at the very top, but the B1G has considerable academic strength when from top to bottom. The B1G does not have the weak sisters that both the ACC (e.g, FSU) and the Pac (e.g., ASU, WSU) have from the middle on down. It is what it is..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
Dandy Don's quote ("If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas") seems apropos here. Who the hell knows what might have happened?

FWIW, I think that the ACC (and the Pac 12, for that matter), are stronger academically.at the very top, but the B1G has considerable academic strength when from top to bottom. The B1G does not have the weak sisters that both the ACC (e.g, FSU) and the Pac (e.g., ASU, WSU) have from the middle on down. It is what it is...


If research is the driving factor, the weak sisters of the PAC 12 are the Oregon schools, though Oregon State has more funded research than Indiana. In the ACC, it's Syracuse and BC.

Funny thing is that the CIC is easy to duplicate. Makes one wonder why no one else has (actually other groups have, though to limited degrees and not necessarily based on athletic conference affiliation).
 
If research is the driving factor, the weak sisters of the PAC 12 are the Oregon schools, though Oregon State has more funded research than Indiana. In the ACC, it's Syracuse and BC.

Funny thing is that the CIC is easy to duplicate. Makes one wonder why no one else has (actually other groups have, though to limited degrees and not necessarily based on athletic conference affiliation).
Does seem odd. I think the CIC does give the universities involved a leg up when lobbying, and you would think more schools would want that. As I recall, most of the CIC institutions do rather well in government funding (at least in my field--chemistry). They don't tend to be in the top 5 but do seem to hold down quite a few spots in the 20 places under that--as I recall (it's been quite a while since I had reason to look that up or check C&EN for their annual funding review).
 
Does seem odd. I think the CIC does give the universities involved a leg up when lobbying, and you would think more schools would want that. As I recall, most of the CIC institutions do rather well in government funding (at least in my field--chemistry). They don't tend to be in the top 5 but do seem to hold down quite a few spots in the 20 places under that--as I recall (it's been quite a while since I had reason to look that up or check C&EN for their annual funding review).


CIC does little in the way of lobbying. That's the AAU's bailiwick. There is a reason that the latter is located in DC.
 
Arizona State along with West Virginia may be two of the easiest schools to get into in the country...kids from my high school that almost NEVER went to class and got horrible grades all got in.
 
I'm still waiting for somebody to make a case for being in the ACC- or any other conference- over the B1G.

Nobody has, because there isn't one to be made.

Like it, hate it, we're not going anywhere- and everyone knows it.
 
More interesting, what would have happen if JVP's idea of a Big East come to fruition. Think about it; majority of college football fans are in the Northeast. Maryland, Virginia and Virginia Tech probably would have joined; would probably have Connecticut also . OSU and MI could then have their own league with diminishing exposure, i.e., no Northeast or Mid-Atlantic. Even more reason to dislike Pittsburgh and Syracuse; now they have to travel all over creation to get beat by tobacco-road schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: step.eng69
Just how many do you go to?

I'll put it another way. Miami, Tallahasee, Atlanta, Clemson, SC, etc are much nicer places to travel to than Columbus, Ann Arbor East Lansing, Bloomington, etc. Especially in November.
 
Some people liked the eastern conference opponents because Penn State would win. Once we were in the Big Ten, the competition became tougher. We blame the conference, the officiating, etc., but if we were a perennial power like the old days, no one would complain. Take wrestling for example, would you want to be in the ACC for that? Or ice hockey?
 
Some people liked the eastern conference opponents because Penn State would win. Once we were in the Big Ten, the competition became tougher. We blame the conference, the officiating, etc., but if we were a perennial power like the old days, no one would complain. Take wrestling for example, would you want to be in the ACC for that? Or ice hockey?
The competition didn't get any tougher in the Big 10. PSU got worse.
 
I'm still waiting for somebody to make a case for being in the ACC- or any other conference- over the B1G.

Nobody has, because there isn't one to be made.

Like it, hate it, we're not going anywhere- and everyone knows it.

Closer conference road games, if you live on the east coast.

;)
 
I liked the jump to the Big 10 at the time.The shock was the animosity from Mich., ( i thought they were above that nonsense). The other shock were the obvious badly officiated games against Mich, OSU,Iowa,Neb,and a few others,(honest competition went out the window).
Had we not joined i'm sure ND would have.
The only situation that presently exists that i don't care for is the heavily laden east division,and i would have preferred a yearly rivalry with Nebraska, but right now it is what it is.
I imagine that in the future, conferences as we now know them, will no longer exist. It will either be mega conferences,or boxed in regional divisions.The MACs and Sunbelts will fade to where they were in the sixties and seventies.
 
That last part is true but I find that people don't apply that same reasoning to the scenario where the Eastern schools did form a conference back in the 70s or 80s. People say that if that happened then everything would look different today and there would be a strong, viable Eastern all sports conference. I don't get it Even if an all sports Eastern conference with PSU and Syr and BC, etc, etc, etc formed back in the 70s or 80s the Big Ten would still have come calling for PSU eventually and considering the money involved, PSU would have jumped.

Not necessarily. Joe was initially VERY loyal to the Eastern Schools. And he would have been the Conference's architect. He would have tried to keep it together at all costs.

With the television markets it would have controlled in future years (virtual monopoly on everything from Boston to Washington DC), and the increased integration of ALL sports, It could have become a giant.

As an Independent, I and many others never really followed the other schools outside of football season because they had no affect on us. But if they were part of our Conference, I would have been following schools like UConn, Maryland, and Pitt all year. The interest in College Sports in the Northeast would have been exponentially greater than it is now.

The 3 schools that screwed Joe in 1981 were Pitt, Syracuse, and Boston College. Add in cheaters and cover up artists like Florida State, North Carolina, and Louisville, and the Ohio State "tat scandal" looks like a mild case of jay walking. That is why I never want anything to do with the ACC.

Joe's 12 Team Hypothetical All Sports Conference 2016

Penn State
Pitt
Temple
Syracuse
Boston College
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Miami
Maryland
Connecticut
Rutgers
Cincinnati
 
Other than Ohios State, Michigan, Michigan State the rest of the BIG stinks. I would be more interested in watching PSU play Pitt, WVU, Miami, Virginia, Tech hell even UCONN and Syracuse Maryland Rutgersthan Indiana, Purdue, NWestern, Minnesota, ect. But it is what it is and that is not the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ruready07 and PSU65
Joe's 12 Team Hypothetical All Sports Conference 2016

Penn State
Pitt
Temple
Syracuse
Boston College
West Virginia
Virginia Tech
Miami
Maryland
Connecticut
Rutgers
Cincinnati
That would have been fantastic !,Joe supposedly had the Fiesta locked in for the champion.
Here's the catch that most people forget , three of the above mentioned schools EXCLUDED us from basketball, they wanted their own basketball conference.Exclusion was not only the monkey on our back in the Big 10 but also in the proposed Eastern Conference.WHY?
 
Other than Ohios State, Michigan, Michigan State the rest of the BIG stinks. I would be more interested in watching PSU play Pitt, WVU, Miami, Virginia, Tech hell even UCONN and Syracuse Maryland Rutgersthan Indiana, Purdue, NWestern, Minnesota, ect. But it is what it is and that is not the case.

You would have been able to do that. But Pitt, Syracuse, and Boston College stuck it right up our a$$. They can go screw themselves.
 
You would have been able to do that. But Pitt, Syracuse, and Boston College stuck it right up our a$$. They can go screw themselves.
As it turned out, those three schools (Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College) got their wish and are now part of a basketball oriented conference which explains why very few people care about their football programs. They are also the only Yankee schools in a conference which takes pride in its southern history. I'm sure buyer's remorse exists on several campuses.
 
I frankly would rather travel to ACC destinations. If Penn State could somehow convince ND to become a full partner if they joined the ACC with us...I'd be for it. I think the money would eventually even out over time.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT