no wonder we hired Hunter Lochmann
The article is here on his NYT blog.
Maryland and Rutgers are not necessarily poor choices compared with some of the other logical alternatives.
I count five other universities that are A.A.U. members, that play in a major college football conference, and that are either within a current Big Ten state or border one.
And the conclusion:
It is probably no coincidence that the two most popular college football conferences – the Southeastern and the Big Ten – have until now been the most conservative about expansion. The most recent additions to the Big Ten, Penn State and the University of Nebraska, ranked as the 3rd and 18th most popular football programs in the country. The newest additions to the Southeastern Conference, Texas A&M and Missouri, were ranked 6th and 23rd.
Rutgers and Maryland are outstanding public universities – but they are just not in the same league in terms of football.
The Big Ten may have expanded the size of its revenue pie, but it will be dividing it 14 ways rather than 12, and among family members that have less history of sitting down at the table with one another. In seeking to expand its footprint eastward, the conference may have taken a step in the wrong direction.
The above-linked article on Deadspin describes the myriad ways that ESPN has dropped journalistic integrity for the sake of profit. It takes particular note of SportsCenter's decision to cover Tim Tebow purely for the sake of ratings.(*1) It also notes, among other things, ESPN's general failure to cover the NHL and the 2012 Olympics, presumably because ESPN did not or does not have broadcasting rights to those sports/events. The quote below from Bruce Feldman, speaking of his time at ESPN, encapsulates much of the article:
"It is a business first and foremost," Bruce Feldman, a 16-year veteran of ESPN who left for CBS last year, told me. "The people who run the company told me as much when I was going through it with them. There's still an element of ESPN that does journalism and there are some people there who are really good journalists. But above all it is a business."
Some might say that ESPN is, of course, a business and ask what's wrong with that. My response would be that there isn't anything inherently wrong with it, but a big problem arises when you position yourself as the premier sports news organization but also edit your reporting for the sake of driving a profitable agenda.
There are a lot of OSU fans on Bucknuts who believe that ESPN purposefully attacks the Big Ten because it is in competition with the Big Ten Network.(*2) I tend to agree with them (why, for example, doesn't the network attack the ACC or the Big East with the fervor that it attacks the Big Ten?). The reason that I think this post may not be OT is because, as others have suggested here since yesterday, I think that we can take the additions of Maryland and Rutgers as the Big Ten fortifying itself against ESPN. They are partners to some extent (Big Ten games are still on ESPN, of course), but they are foes as well, and yesterday's news is an unquestionably ugly but perhaps necessary bit of realpolitik on the part of the Big Ten to keep a stronghold in a system (collegiate athletics) whose media leader is thoroughly corrupt and even antagonistic.
(*1)The point of this post is not to knock Tebow, whom I like.
(*2) See this article for a description of the Big Ten's somewhat acrimonious break from ESPN and the creation of the BTN. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-07-01/sports/ct-spt-0701-big-ten-nebraska--20110701_1_commissioner-jim-delany-john-wildhack-espn-officials
OK having a hard time bringing the video up but heres the links. Great Video.
Like an entrenched field reporter, I have been dilligently standing by for 7 years in war-torn Columbus, Ohio in order to give you first hand reports of what the Buckeye fans think of this year's Game. Any other Columbus area fans care to expand on these points?
- Hoke "gets it," and so does Meyer. They name drop RR as a guy who didn't get it, and even lump in Lloyd and Tressel for being too politically correct in the media about the game.
- They are more scared of Devin than they are of Denard. They think Devin has a better shot at stretching the defense and opening up the field. Little do they know that they will probably see both.
- They see 11-0 and 8-3 as black and white. They don't take into consideration the fact that we've lost to the two teams likely in the NCG and the third with our backup backup QB. I think they see this as a coronation, not as a contest. Hopefully the team is thinking the same way.
- They love Braxton, but harbor some nervousness about the fact that if he has a bad game, they will lose.
Now... win or lose, anyone making the trip down should stop by the Hollywood Casino. I bartend there, but I will not elaborate as to where. If you should figure out who I am, just give a Go Blue and a tip of the hat. I'll be too busy to chat much anyway. It's a fun place to be, and with all the security, likely the safest after hours spot.
Michigan Monday is up again at the Ozone.
Interesting as always.
"But right now the combination of Devin Gardner and Denard Robinson is quite formidable, and as equally unpredictable."
Let's hope so. We will need points.
Michigan and Ohio have played four common opponents this season: Michigan State, Nebraska, Purdue, and Illinois. I got to thinking about how the comparision between the teams via these common opponents might look like so I've thrown some numbers together.
MIchigan played them at home, won 12-10.
Ohio played them on the road, won 17-16.
Michgan played them on the road, lost 23-9.
Ohio played them at home, won 63-38
MIchigan played them at home, won 44-13.
Ohio played them at home, won 29-22 (OT)
Michigan played them at home, won 45-0.
Ohio played them at home, won 52-22.
Some totals for all four games, Michigan first:
A few things that jump out to me right off the bat are the point differentials and the turnover differentials. The point differentials are almost identical. Ohio scores more points than we do but also give up more at about the same rate. Turnovers, however, are completely opposite. They have managed to win all four games with a negative differential, while we have been on the positive side and lose a game (yes huge caveats apply to the Nebraska game for obvious reasons, but M was still only -1 in TOs that game).
So, what do all these numbers mean? Not much, probably. None of these games take into account the new Devin throwing/Denard running offensive machine. Gallon and Rountree have both stepped things up in the last 2-3 weeks (I'm sure DG has had something to do with that as well). Fitz is now out. A lot has changed on our side since any of the above numbers happened. I don't know much about what's happened on their side other than what I see on Sportscenter.
OSU seems to be a bit bipolar to me. They blow out a solid Nebraska team yet have to go to overtime to dispatch Danny Hope's hapless Boilermakers? Obviously they are a good team, but how good? Is the new Devin-Denard Fushion Cuisine Offense really as good as it's been, or is it more the result of overmatched foes with poor defenses? What do you guys think?
EDIT - Sorry I posted before I was done, I didn't know "save" meant "publish".