Deace is off his rocker....

[Rawkhawk73]

...assuming he was ever on it to begin with.

You wanna talk about "flawed premise", his premise that the Big 10 needs to expand south because that is where the population growth resides is completely flawed. So if the Big 10 goes south, all of a sudden all those warm weather kids that Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, etc have wanted will suddenly decide that they don't mind the cold rain, snow, etc? Are you kidding me?

And his premise that because the Big 10 has only won 2 National Championships means we are somehow less of a league or is a sign that we aren't getting the best kids is hogwash. Since when was the measure of a team or a league a National Championship? Only one team each year can win the whole thing.

Finally, his premise that Notre Dame is significantly overrated because they haven't won a bowl game since '93 is ridiculous. He even threw in the obligatory "Iowa State has won more bowl games than Notre Dame since '93". Nice try, Deace. So now the Big 10 should consider ISU instead of Notre Dame?!?! I love how Deace tries to project that he's somehow smarter than Jim Delaney, the man who presides over the preiminent conference in college athletics. Has there ever been a guy more full of himself?!?! I submit to you, the Washington Redskins of the NFL.....they haven't done jacksquat since about 1993 either. But take a guess which franchise is the #2 most valuable franchise in the NFL. There's more to a NFL franchise than how many championships they've won and there's certainly more to a college athletics program than how many bowls they've won.

Sometimes I think he puts out crap like that just to argue.....unforunately for him, he's wrong about 95% of the time.

 

[spudhawk]

If you are a Redskins fan do you care how much the team is worth or how many Superbowls your team has won? I don't agree with every thing that Deace has to say but the southward expansion was the commisioner's own statement. And finally I think we can all agree that ND has a superior product to ISU in football over any timeframe and that was bad hyperbole.

 

[BlackandGold81]

Didnt ND just beat Hawaii pretty good in a bowl game a couple years ago. That is a way off of the '93 statement.

 

[Drakebulldog93]

...assuming he was ever on it to begin with.

You wanna talk about "flawed premise", his premise that the Big 10 needs to expand south because that is where the population growth resides is completely flawed. So if the Big 10 goes south, all of a sudden all those warm weather kids that Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, etc have wanted will suddenly decide that they don't mind the cold rain, snow, etc? Are you kidding me?

And his premise that because the Big 10 has only won 2 National Championships means we are somehow less of a league or is a sign that we aren't getting the best kids is hogwash. Since when was the measure of a team or a league a National Championship? Only one team each year can win the whole thing.

Finally, his premise that Notre Dame is significantly overrated because they haven't won a bowl game since '93 is ridiculous. He even threw in the obligatory "Iowa State has won more bowl games than Notre Dame since '93". Nice try, Deace. So now the Big 10 should consider ISU instead of Notre Dame?!?! I love how Deace tries to project that he's somehow smarter than Jim Delaney, the man who presides over the preiminent conference in college athletics. Has there ever been a guy more full of himself?!?! I submit to you, the Washington Redskins of the NFL.....they haven't done jacksquat since about 1993 either. But take a guess which franchise is the #2 most valuable franchise in the NFL. There's more to a NFL franchise than how many championships they've won and there's certainly more to a college athletics program than how many bowls they've won.

Sometimes I think he puts out crap like that just to argue.....unforunately for him, he's wrong about 95% of the time.

Care to back that up. Do you really think he'd still be on the airwaves if "your" claim was correct. If you don't like him, just say so.

 

[HawksOverHoes]

Care to back that up. Do you really think he'd still be on the airwaves if "your" claim was correct. If you don't like him, just say so.

Ouch!....who pee'd in your Wheaties this morning, Drake?

 

[hawkinaclownhouse]

...assuming he was ever on it to begin with.

You wanna talk about "flawed premise", his premise that the Big 10 needs to expand south because that is where the population growth resides is completely flawed. So if the Big 10 goes south, all of a sudden all those warm weather kids that Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, etc have wanted will suddenly decide that they don't mind the cold rain, snow, etc? Are you kidding me?

And his premise that because the Big 10 has only won 2 National Championships means we are somehow less of a league or is a sign that we aren't getting the best kids is hogwash. Since when was the measure of a team or a league a National Championship? Only one team each year can win the whole thing.

Finally, his premise that Notre Dame is significantly overrated because they haven't won a bowl game since '93 is ridiculous. He even threw in the obligatory "Iowa State has won more bowl games than Notre Dame since '93". Nice try, Deace. So now the Big 10 should consider ISU instead of Notre Dame?!?! I love how Deace tries to project that he's somehow smarter than Jim Delaney, the man who presides over the preiminent conference in college athletics. Has there ever been a guy more full of himself?!?! I submit to you, the Washington Redskins of the NFL.....they haven't done jacksquat since about 1993 either. But take a guess which franchise is the #2 most valuable franchise in the NFL. There's more to a NFL franchise than how many championships they've won and there's certainly more to a college athletics program than how many bowls they've won.

Sometimes I think he puts out crap like that just to argue.....unforunately for him, he's wrong about 95% of the time.

Deace's facts were also wrong as he forgot the 1982 and 1986 Penn State teams.

If you add Nebraska and Notre Dame then you add the 1970, 1971, 1973, 1977, 1988, 1994, and 1995 titles for a total 11 of the last 40 (1970 and beyond).

During that time the SEC has 10 so with Nebraska and ND the Big Ten actually has more titles.

The ACC has won 8.

The new PAC 10 with Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado have won 9.

Other winners are Pitt & BYU


I am looking at the Associated Press champs for each year.

 

[Win5002]

I am listening to re-broadcast and I think he makes some good points. And its not just his idea to go to the south the commissioner has mentioned it. Also, look at wikipedia populations for those southern states and their growth rates compared to the rest of the country and I think he has some merit.

No just because the Big 10 gets a team in a particular team in the south it doesn't mean you get all the players, but it gives you a presence. Then the Big 10 schools has to sell those recruits about the passion and full stadiums from those schools in the conferences versus playing close to home where the football passion is mediocre at least in going up against the ACC(not necessarily the SEC).

While ND does help sell Network subscriptions, I agree it doesn't necessarily help the conference recruiting or make the conference relevant as a national power on the field.

Matter of fact, if ND doesn't want to come and Texas is off the table I really hope they think outside the box with some of the southern teams. Make a 4 team division from the South and Atlantic area states. Maryland, Ga. Tech, Vanderbilt and Virginia have been mentioned. I would like them to look at Florida, North Carolina, & VA. Tech(if their academics are in order).

 

[hawkeyescott]

...

Finally, his premise that Notre Dame is significantly overrated because they haven't won a bowl game since '93 is ridiculous. He even threw in the obligatory "Iowa State has won more bowl games than Notre Dame since '93". Nice try, Deace.

Didnt ND just beat Hawaii pretty good in a bowl game a couple years ago. That is a way off of the '93 statement.

Yes and Deace said "ND has only 1 bowl win since 93" not they haven't won a bowl game since 93, once again another example of people only hearing what fits their argument instead of what was actually said.

 

[Cosity82]

His points aren't that far off. As has been mentioned, it was the Big 10 commissioner that brought up the population shift to the south. I would say Deace is pretty spot on there - all he had to do is regurgitate what the commish already said. I actually find it suspiciously coincidental that G Tech jsut got accepted into the AAU. Nice timing? I'm not personally a fan of adding teams that far out of the box, but it would be silly to dismiss it as it came straight from the commish.

The Nat'l Champs thing doesn't faze me one bit, but when you talk about national perspective - yes it does matter. We all know "the Big 10 is down/weak" talk is bullsh!t but its all you hear from anyone outside the conference so yes, bowl games must be won to regain some confidence and if its a BCS title game - all the better.

Last, ND has won a bowl game since 93 - they beat Hawaii last year. So they got that monkey off their back. I don't think they're as overrated as Deace has made them look. ISU certainly does NOT hold a candle to them, but ND is in a slump. If the new coach can't turn them around in the next couple of years they could be in for a rude awakening - the end of their glory days. But as of right now the writing may be on the wall but they still hold some clout.

So Deace isn't that far off, maybe just has a flair for the melodramatic.

 

[PJHawk]

...assuming he was ever on it to begin with. You wanna talk about "flawed premise"

Flawed? Steve laid out such a compelling argument Jon eventually couldn't even make valid response; here is my take on it from a post I made this morning in Jon’s ND/Big Ten thread:

Jon I just listened to your second hour from today's show and Deace nailed it. I was of the same opinion that the BT could add ND and stop but Deace makes one pretty damn compelling argument why that is not a good enough on the long term strategy of Big Ten viability. Steve’s argument that you cannot let all your rival conferences consolidate their resources - population, recruiting, demographics, booster fund raising etc. (which the Big Ten is already losing the battle) and simply add ND to counter that.

It got a little heated and you hung in there for awhile but I think you have to admit you conceded the argument to Deace when your final response was “that’s for those future people to worry about, I’ll be dead then, I just wanna watch Iowa and ND play now”.

 

[homes]

Flawed? Steve laid out such a compelling argument Jon eventually couldn't even make valid response; here is my take on it from a post I made this morning in Jon’s ND/Big Ten thread:

Jon I just listened to your second hour from today's show and Deace nailed it. I was of the same opinion that the BT could add ND and stop but Deace makes one pretty damn compelling argument why that is not a good enough on the long term strategy of Big Ten viability. Steve’s argument that you cannot let all your rival conferences consolidate their resources - population, recruiting, demographics, booster fund raising etc. (which the Big Ten is already losing the battle) and simply add ND to counter that.

It got a little heated and you hung in there for awhile but I think you have to admit you conceded the argument to Deace when your final response was “that’s for those future people to worry about, I’ll be dead then, I just wanna watch Iowa and ND play nowâ€￾.

The flaw in his argument is his ability to project population trends 25-50 years from now. With states like California already on the brink of financial disaster, their ability to provide ongoing economic opportunity to people will be further hampered. People will go where opportunities are available. Don't get me started on this, but if states, like Iowa, can create economic opportunities for businesses to be here, people will come. Warm weather is nice, but it doesn't put food on the table and a roof over your head (even in nice weather climates it still rains once in awhile). Things can shift, if the relative opportunities change.

 

[Win5002]

Homes,
One thing you have to keep in mind is most of these southern states are conservative in nature and have a lower tax rate and are friendly to business and hence will continue to attract business and industry.

You brought up California and yes it is a good example of mis-management, overspending and liberalism gone amuck. But California has so many people even if they grow at a slower rate or decline slightly they have such a high population already and will always be a very large population state.

 

[Rawkhawk73]

Care to back that up. Do you really think he'd still be on the airwaves if "your" claim was correct. If you don't like him, just say so.

Umm, the amount of time an on-air personality is right has no correlation to how successful/unsuccessful he/she is. It's simply the amount of time people listen and in that respect he's been wildly successful.

I don't dislike Deace at all. He does a great job pulling in listeners to the 2 shows he's on and, consequently, pulls in a lot of ad revenue for those stations. It's afforded him the opportunity to do what he loves and provide for his family.....can't ask for much more than that and for that, I applaud him.

However, I do take issue with his attitude towards others that don't agree with him or who call him out for being wrong. I only wish Jon would do it more often, but it's obvious that Jon isn't one for confrontation. Steve's main problem is that he doesn't consider alternatives and can't imagine that anyone else who thinks differently than him can be right. In addition, he gets so consumed by his biases that he doesn't think both sides of an issue clearly. Take his afternoon show, for example. By listening to it, you'd think that BVP was ahead in the primary polls by double digits and that Brandstad had one foot in the political grave. Come to find out, Brandstad is up 57% to 29% in the latest DMR poll. So his response isn't to consider that maybe a majority of Iowans don't feel the same way about BVP as he does, it's to say that the poll was a sham and a setup to keep the BVP people home. Seriously?!?! Or take today's take on Notre Dame. As a Michigan fan, Steve has a huge bias against Notre Dame and wants nothing to do with them in the Big 10. He certainly doesn't want to see them share in the same rewards that Michigan has as a lifelong member of the Big 10. But instead of saying that, he comes up with something like "Notre Dame has 1 bowl win since 1993 so they are overvalued and don't deserve the Big 10". As if bowl wins are the only barometer to judge how an athletic program and a university as a whole can bring value to a conference. Look, I hate Notre Dame, but I'm not so blind that I can't see the value they'd bring to the Big 10....and since Delany's no dummy, I'll defer to his judgment before I defer to Steve's.

At the end of the day, he does a heckuva job pulling in people to listen to his show, but his analysis is lazy and he often has terrible "facts" to back up his biased arguments. When that happens, he falls back on "false premise", "ridiculous" and "********" to belittle his fellow debater to the point that they give up and he claims victory. He should be better than that.

 

[pmchawk]

I thought Deace was dead on and Jon was off his rocker. It was clear he was going based on emotion and what he wants to happen. the fact is, ND by itself isnt enough, sure it ties everything off nicely and it likely keeps anyone else from expanding (which isn't a bad thing). ND just doesn't add a whole lot of value to the Big 10 in terms of $ since a big % of their TV sets are in Big 10 country and the rest would be spread pretty evenly all over the US making it hard to bargin a larger $ with cable companies might get more from satellite companies though.

a good chunk of the people who watch ND on NBC cheer against them because they hate ND and they don't have to pay extra watch them lose. People wont be willing to part with more of their money to see ND lose. most would see the free scrolling score bar is better then intentially putting money in NDs pocket.

The trick is finding the right amount and mixture to maximise NDs worth. you can also in a way help them getting to play from coast to coast depending on the teams added. {ND vs GTech (SE), ND. vs Rutgers (NE), ND vs midwest team} and still play USC & Standford OOC. they would still be all over the place. They wouldn't be locked down to the current Big 10 footprint like they seem to be afraid of doing.

 

[Drakebulldog93]

Ouch!....who pee'd in your Wheaties this morning, Drake?

It wasn't meant to come across as angry, my bad. The OP said 95% of the time he is wrong...statements like that make me go WTF.

I see the OP addressed it later on this thread.

 

[SeattleHawkeye]

Homes,
One thing you have to keep in mind is most of these southern states are conservative in nature and have a lower tax rate and are friendly to business and hence will continue to attract business and industry.

You brought up California and yes it is a good example of mis-management, overspending and liberalism gone amuck. But California has so many people even if they grow at a slower rate or decline slightly they have such a high population already and will always be a very large population state.

Love how you bring what seems to be a Conservative political insight into this discussion, in particular being friendly to business. Don't forget that some of those businesses moving South also have had severe quality problems and are re-thinking that decision and some have even chosen to forego Southern plants due to the ongoing quality issues (quality being directly related to education). Those lower tax rates are fantastic for businesses, but what happens when they only want to employee the cheapest labor they can, in particular non-unionized labor? More tax breaks for the businesses and lower class employees they're alluring to the region and hiring, and squeezing out the middle class? Hmmmmmmmm. Love me some W/Cheney econ 101, where the rich get obscenely rich, the poor get some tax breaks so they're not quite as poor, and the 95% of us in the middle get F'd.

But, the bigger question is, why would people move to the South? B/c it snows less? I drove through AL about 10 years ago and never felt so privileged in my life! The education isn't as good as the Midwest, the poverty and subtle (and not-so-subtle) racism remain, and are the heat and humidity really worth it, not to mention the underemployment? Also, what happens if people continue moving South? Eventually we get 5-6 CAs ruined by "liberalism run amok!" Oh wait, Southern states are Conservative, so there'll be plenty of businesses to hire everyone, but their employees' quality of life will be so poor that crime will be rampant, the environment will be garbage b/c most conservatives aren't exactly environmentalists (BP anyone?), businesses will begin to fail and/or move to other communities, taking w/ them jobs and employees, and the migration then moves somewhere else. Is that what you meant by "southern states are conservative in nature and have a lower tax rate and are friendly to business and hence will continue to attract business and industry?" If so, I can't pack my bags soon enough to head South!

 

[ChocoLoco]

...assuming he was ever on it to begin with.

You wanna talk about "flawed premise", his premise that the Big 10 needs to expand south because that is where the population growth resides is completely flawed. So if the Big 10 goes south, all of a sudden all those warm weather kids that Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, etc have wanted will suddenly decide that they don't mind the cold rain, snow, etc? Are you kidding me?

And his premise that because the Big 10 has only won 2 National Championships means we are somehow less of a league or is a sign that we aren't getting the best kids is hogwash. Since when was the measure of a team or a league a National Championship? Only one team each year can win the whole thing.

Finally, his premise that Notre Dame is significantly overrated because they haven't won a bowl game since '93 is ridiculous. He even threw in the obligatory "Iowa State has won more bowl games than Notre Dame since '93". Nice try, Deace. So now the Big 10 should consider ISU instead of Notre Dame?!?! I love how Deace tries to project that he's somehow smarter than Jim Delaney, the man who presides over the preiminent conference in college athletics. Has there ever been a guy more full of himself?!?! I submit to you, the Washington Redskins of the NFL.....they haven't done jacksquat since about 1993 either. But take a guess which franchise is the #2 most valuable franchise in the NFL. There's more to a NFL franchise than how many championships they've won and there's certainly more to a college athletics program than how many bowls they've won.

Sometimes I think he puts out crap like that just to argue.....unforunately for him, he's wrong about 95% of the time.

Well, ISU is actually a much better fit academically for the B10 than ND is, but the big lie is that all this has anything to do with academics(only secondary)!

 

[Clark]

I thought Deace was dead on and Jon was off his rocker. It was clear he was going based on emotion and what he wants to happen. the fact is, ND by itself isnt enough, sure it ties everything off nicely and it likely keeps anyone else from expanding (which isn't a bad thing). ND just doesn't add a whole lot of value to the Big 10 in terms of $ since a big % of their TV sets are in Big 10 country and the rest would be spread pretty evenly all over the US making it hard to bargin a larger $ with cable companies might get more from satellite companies though.

a good chunk of the people who watch ND on NBC cheer against them because they hate ND and they don't have to pay extra watch them lose. People wont be willing to part with more of their money to see ND lose. most would see the free scrolling score bar is better then intentially putting money in NDs pocket.

The trick is finding the right amount and mixture to maximise NDs worth. you can also in a way help them getting to play from coast to coast depending on the teams added. {ND vs GTech (SE), ND. vs Rutgers (NE), ND vs midwest team} and still play USC & Standford OOC. they would still be all over the place. They wouldn't be locked down to the current Big 10 footprint like they seem to be afraid of doing.

Deace never said that ND wou'dn't add anything to the Big 10. In fact he never disputed that adding ND would be better financially than adding 5 other teams.

All he said was that it would hurt football. I don't agree for many of the same reasons Jon didn't agree. I just couldn't get around the fact that if the Big 10 doesn't recruit the area anyway (Texas, West Coast) why they would care if the new Pac 10 was a big player there. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how that's different from right now where the Big 12 and Pac 10 get a very large majority of these players. Not to mention the fact that apparantly the "new ACC" would take away recruiting areas the Big 10 already has (Maryland, NJ) even though neither them nor the Big East can currently shut out the Big 10 in that area but an ACC without it's best football schools (who will go to the SEC) will.

 

[Clark]

Well, ISU is actually a much better fit academically for the B10 than ND is, but the big lie is that all this has anything to do with academics(only secondary)!

How do you figure? Because ISU is in the AAU? ND is way, way better of an academic school than ISU (and Iowa for that matter)

 

[pmchawk]

I don't agree for many of the same reasons Jon didn't agree. I just couldn't get around the fact that if the Big 10 doesn't recruit the area anyway (Texas, West Coast) why they would care if the new Pac 10 was a big player there. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how that's different from right now where the Big 12 and Pac 10 get a very large majority of these players. Not to mention the fact that apparantly the "new ACC" would take away recruiting areas the Big 10 already has (Maryland, NJ) even though neither them nor the Big East can currently shut out the Big 10 in that area but an ACC without it's best football schools (who will go to the SEC) will.

I believe with all of the "network" possibilites that if we don't get a team from somewhere outside of our footprint a lot of Big 10 games wouldn't be seen outside of the footprint. even if we don't recruit in certain parts of the country doesn't mean we don't want our teams seen there.