Expansion Reaction Roundup Comment Count

Brian

image

Blogs of record from each Big Ten team and a bonus.

Crimson Quarry (Indiana):

For all the talk about footprint and media markets and academic standing, the Big Ten is an athletic conference. The Penn State and Nebraska additions made sense for athletics. These moves, if they happen, will best be understood as a cash grab. I'll certainly welcome these schools if it happens, but at first blush I'm not thrilled.

Bucky's Fifth Quarter (Wisconsin):

I've heard plenty of people say, "Get over it! This is the new age of college athletics." And yes, for better or worse we're moving into a new era.

With that being said, I'll firmly stand on the side saying that, yet again, money and greed are the evils that us into this "new era" of college athletics.

Hammer and Rails (Purdue):

I only see this as an absolutely shameless cash grab for the conference that is already printing money with its own TV network. At least the addition of Nebraska made sense. This really doesn't. We're shaking everything up to add a horrible basketball program and decent football program plus one with an awful football program and a basketball program that had a good run 10 years ago.

Land Grant Holy Land (OSU):

The Big Ten isn't quitting on their arbitrary, silly, and frankly pretentious divisional realignment and divisional names…. but instead we get more constant reminders about what Jim Delany thinks about basically all Big Ten sports fans, writers, and alums.

[AFTER THE JUMP: Penn State is okay with it. Everyone else?]

Black Shoe Diaries (PSU):

I can't imagine many around here will be happy with this move. But Jim Delany doesn't care what makes you happy. The Big Ten is--once again--jumping out in front of the expansion race. And whether you choose to believe it or not, establishing a bigger footprint in the New York City and Washington, DC metro regions is a very good get for the conference.

Sippin' on Purple (NW):

We know why this makes sense for Maryland - their school is broke - and we know how it makes sense for Rutgers - the Big East is a massive compilation of suck - but nobody can really figure out why the Big Ten is doing this. Does it REALLY make that much extra money? Isn't the league already flowing in cash? If so, does it offput the weirdness of a league that justified Nebraska to the conference on the school's geographical similarity, similar personality and football prowess adding Maryland and Rutgers, which have none of those three things?

Corn Nation (NU):

The University of Maryland and Rutgers University Are Joining the Big Ten. Shock, dismay follow.

Daily Gopher (Minnesota):

While the move makes a helluva lot of sense financially for Maryland, Rutgers, and potentially for the Big Ten, it makes zero sense from a perspective of the things fans care about: competition, geography, and culture. Unlike with the announcement of adding Nebraska, zero fans across the Big Ten were excited about this potential move.

The Champaign Room (Illinois):

It makes all the sense in the world monetarily, but in this week of rivalries I am left wondering what could have been. When Nebraska joined up, there were rumors and rumblings that the Cornhuskers may have been bringing fellow Big 8 founding member Missouri with them. It was ultimately decided that the St. Louis and Kansas City markets just were not appealing enough to make the addition worth it and our neighbors to the southwest moved to the SEC. And like any responsible adult, I'm left wondering what could have been.

Neither BHGP or Fight For Iowa bothered to say anything, probably because they care about nothing and just want football to end.

Maize and Brew (Michigan):

Since this whole conference expansion thing was originally Jim Delany's doing, its damn well appropriate that he is about to execute its swan song: a foolish, misguided attempt to better an athletic conference by considering everything but athletics.

Also the MZone:

JIM DELANY:  I've had my eye on you forever.
SYRACUSE: You have?
JIM DELANY: 'Course.  We should get together.  Maybe go hang in the city.  With all the people and their cable-ready households.
SYRACUSE: You mean like Buffalo?
JIM DELANY (LAUGHS): New York.
SYRACUSE: Uh... okay, but that's like four and a half hours away.
JIM DELANY: What?
SYRACUSE: I live in Upstate New York.  Is that a problem?
JIM DELANY (MAKING HIS VOICE BREAK UP): What did you sa--? We ha-- a bad-- connectio--
CLICK! Delany slams down the phone.

MSU blogs didn't offer any opinions. Representative rec'd comment:

Booo!

I hate this move. Frankly Penn State was bad, Nebraska seemed like a good fit but Maryland? WTF are Delaney and Co. thinking? Maryland doesn’t fit geographically, regionally, ‘culturally’, and lets be honest: doesn’t bring much to the table athletically at this point either. Rutgers is just as bad if they end up coming along.

Terrible move for the B1G. I hate the shift towards super conferences they destroy everything that makes college sports special. I’ll always support MSU, but these moves just completely undermine regional and conference football identities.

For the record I graduated in ’02 even if the above makes it sound like I graduated in ’62.

By my count that's one yes from Penn State, two meh-leaning-nos from Illinois and Indiana, one inability to rouse yourself from overwhelming otter ennui at Iowa, and eight HELL NOs.

In other conferences, Best Rant Goes To From Old Virginia:

i hate college football

I guess there's no sense not addressing the elephant in the room.  I can't not - Maryland has changed so many of my opinions about college sports in one day that I never thought could be changed.

More specifically, I no longer have opinions about things.  I stopped caring.  People don't like "conventional wisdom" because it's conventional.  I like it because it's wisdom.  Conventional wisdom dictated that we were finally settling into an equilibrium again.  Now there is no conventional wisdom.  Does the Big Ten sit around or find more markets to try and put the BTN into?  Does the SEC look to the ACC for two more members themselves?

What happens to the Big East?  Are we headed towards, not 4x16, but 5x16?  Who knows?  I don't give a damn any more.

It keeps going, and going. Enjoy it. Savor it.

Comments

Alton

November 21st, 2012 at 5:25 PM ^

"The Big Ten Network was universally hated in 2002"?  Leaving aside the error with the year, I still disagree. 

I hated the network when it started, but not the idea of the network.  The idea is awesome, and a great way to make money by providing more of what I want to see (that's what I thought it would do).  I challenge you to find anybody who said that they hated the idea.  I know some people thought it would fail, but every Big Ten sports fan was happy to see it happen.  Nobody thought it was going to be "sooooo terrible for the conference," to use your presumably sarcastic phrase.

People were frustrated with the negotiations with the carriers, trying to get it on to the air, and thought the conference was asking too much, but that's different than thinking that the network itself is terrible for the conference.  Also, the execution (that is, the quality of the TV coverage and programming) was terrible and over the years has only risen from the level of terrible all of the way up to awful.  But that's a different question.

And, of course, even if I am wrong, this has nothing to do with whether it is a good thing to add Rutgers to the conference.

STW P. Brabbs

November 22nd, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^

'... this good thing happened, even though a lot of people thought it was bad at first.  So other things that people think are bad will probably be good too. '

This sounds like one of the answer choices on the LSAT for: 'Which of the following best represents the flaw in the author's argument?'

snoopblue

November 21st, 2012 at 4:46 PM ^

The best comment I read was someone writing about how no one gets this upset over tuition  hikes and prices of books, just the general rise in the price of education.

I just hope this whole capitalist business philosophy that trickled down from pro sports to college sports doesn't continue to trickle down further into high school sports.

Geary_maize

November 21st, 2012 at 5:03 PM ^

There are plenty of fans who, while initially dismayed, are looking over this issue and have cautiously become optimistic about this in the long run. This brings the B1G fertile recruiting grounds, good research institutes, more money in the ever escalating arms race with the SEC (5 million for Nick Saban 4 years ago??), and the two new schools have potential to be pretty good ala South Carolina.

We were able to build the new basketball center with B1G funds. The academic center. The stadium upgrade. The suites, the Crisler renovations. Yost arena renovations. Everything Delaney has done to bring this conference money has helped us become more competitive. What's wrong with that?

Sure we play less games against each other, but outside of Ohio and MSU is there any team we absolutely have to play evey year? Tons of alumni in NY and DC can now attend a game or two, and now we'll get more recruits from talent rich Maryland and Jersey.

And yes Rutgers has attendence issues, but who in their right minds would want to see the crapola lining up against Rutgers week after week regardless of rankings???

You're literally looking for opinions that agree with you, and if there aren't any, digging through the comments. Come on, at least try to show the other side of view!

MGoBosch

November 21st, 2012 at 5:44 PM ^

But what you are missing is that the B1G had a multitude of options to generate the same or similar value, while also adding to the excitement and tradition of the conference. Nothing of true, lasting value is gained by adding more bottom dwellers to the conference.

When you are in a position of strength you do not settle. The B1G was strong at 12 teams. It is not appreciably better now at 14. And if you claim that Rutgers and Maryland bring you more of nyc and dc than michigan, ohio, and psu do then you are in a pipe dream.

Geary_maize

November 21st, 2012 at 6:03 PM ^

What other options did we have? Historic teams like Pitt and Syracuse who don't have great in-state talent or are second fiddle schools spiral downwards faster than a lead parachute with one bad hire. At least these two teams, when bad, allow us to pirate their recruits, like how Michigan robs Illinois blind. 

Given the same amount of resources, in the long run, the noobs should be better than the bottom feeders if only due to their in state talent.

As for finances and New York and DC, Delaney's specialty other than being a harda** is shoving cash down the B1G's throat, so why not trust his analysis?

Geary_maize

November 21st, 2012 at 9:58 PM ^

Yes, but they will forever be second fiddle to Penn State in Pennsylvania, Ohio in Ohio, and Michigan in Michigan. At least New Jersey and Maryland has good enough talent... but no in-state rival.

Without built in in-state talent it's hard to consistantly compete. Hence the rotating doors of Pitt coaches. Can you imagine Dantonio with the talent of New Jersey or Maryland?

MGoBosch

November 22nd, 2012 at 5:45 AM ^

I tried to respond to this earlier but got denied.... so I'll make it short: There is no value added to the system by maryland or rutgers. Nyc and dc are already hotbeds of uofm, ohio, and psu talent. We don't need bottom feeder contenders to compete.

knibb high football rules

Geary_maize

November 22nd, 2012 at 6:02 AM ^

There was a NYT article about college fans in New York, and Rutgers had more fans than the next 3 combined. Maryland is right next to DC, and you're completely mistaken if you think it's not Maryland dominated. New Jersey and Maryland also has more high school talent by far than Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, Nebraska, and Wisconsin so they will probably not be bottom feeders.

I'll also make this short: I'd rather trust Delaney and his judgement than someone who has his facts wrong.

Jeff09

November 21st, 2012 at 5:14 PM ^

To everyone saying 'well now that they have money, these two schools COULD be good at sports in like 10 years,' WTF? 1) more money doesn't necessarily mean better athletics so you're taking a big risk. I just checked, and Purdue still sucks at sports. These two teams may or may not improve at all. And 2) it's not our responsibility to drag other schools up by their bootstraps. We're the ones with the cash! We have the bargaining chips. We're the hot girl in the bar. Why sleep with the broke ass losers?

JBE

November 21st, 2012 at 5:25 PM ^

Because the broke ass losers have the bomb ass d. MD and NJ are talent rich areas. Maryland has 23 NFL players. Rutgers has like 16, which is about the B10 average. Maryland/Virginia is talent rich in Basketball and same with NYC. A B10 profile and exposure will undoubtedly help them tap a little deeper into their respective pools.

JBE

November 21st, 2012 at 5:38 PM ^

I don't care much about any so-called B10 identity - how would you qualify that identity. Nor am I sure exactly how B10 tradition is defined. All I'm saying is that Maryland and Rutgers have the surrounding talent to compete in the B10, and the presence of the B10 in those areas may help in overall recruiting for the conference.

STW P. Brabbs

November 22nd, 2012 at 10:53 AM ^

Abstract thinking can be hard.  Sometimes, you can't put numbers on a thing, and you can even have trouble coming up with a crystal-clear definition of it.

For example: does nationalism exist?  It's sure hard to define, even though a lot of social science experts have been trying for a very long time.  

Geary_maize

November 21st, 2012 at 5:21 PM ^

Both new schools have way better in state talent than Indiana. Look at South Carolina. Irrelevant until the serious SEC money started coming in. They built new facilities hired a new coach, and started locking down in state talent. Now they're ranked #12, and I guarantee opposing SEC fans are excited to see them come to play.

Geary_maize

November 21st, 2012 at 5:36 PM ^

Anything wrong in my logic? If one team can do it, another team with very similar or better circumstances can do it as well. And with the big time money, it is actually probably.

The bad comparison to Purdue and assuming they will be aweful forever, ingoring their buildt in advantages is pretty bad logic.

Jeff09

November 21st, 2012 at 5:43 PM ^

Fair enough. Rereading your post it sounded like MD or Rutgers becoming good was a near certainty, which we both agree it's not. I guess I think it's less probable than you do.



But why not add a team with historically strong athletics? Much lower risk in my view.

Geary_maize

November 21st, 2012 at 5:53 PM ^

At least we have the ultimate experiment team in Nebraska right? GREAT history, but I honestly wonder how they'll do without their Texas connections. Even historically good teams that don't have great in-state talent seem to spiral downwards very very quickly with one bad hire.

Jeff09

November 21st, 2012 at 6:02 PM ^

To be fair, I'm open to some change. I was thrilled with Nebraska, thought it was a great move. I hope they return to their prior form (as long as they lose to us more than they beat us of course)

Geary_maize

November 21st, 2012 at 9:37 PM ^

Didn't think of that. But it's nice being in a decent talent state and next to a very good one that lets us recover pretty quickly eh? Imagine Minnesota or Purdue trying to recover from a bad coaching hire. Oh wait, we don't have to imagine.

ChicagoB1GRed

November 21st, 2012 at 8:07 PM ^

we seem to be holding our own in the conference. We even got a 4 star RB committment this week from TX. But NU's always recruited nationally.

You make a good point about coaching, but even Texas sucked with all their in-state talent for a long time with average coaching.

Alton

November 21st, 2012 at 5:42 PM ^

South Carolina beat Michigan in 1980 (12 years before they joined the SEC) at Michigan Stadium, against one of our three best teams of the 1980s.  They had the Heisman Trophy winner that year.  They certainly weren't "irrelevant."

Also, South Carolina received 5 bowl invitations in the 13 years before they joined the SEC, and 3 bowl invitations in the 13 years after they joined the SEC.  That's back when bowl invitations were a little harder to come by than they are today, obviously. 

Geary_maize

November 21st, 2012 at 5:42 PM ^

Great info, didn't know that. So they were decent, but I wouldn't say it was anything special to be honest. Rutgers joined a major conference in 1991, and have actually been pretty decent the past decade. Maryland finished 10th, 18th, and 17th in the early 2000's too.

South Carolina does have more tradition than I thought, but still it doesn't seem so much better to be honest.

befuggled

November 21st, 2012 at 6:17 PM ^

Historically, they were good enough to go to the occasional bowl game. As bowl games became more often, they went more often. 

With a few exceptions, they were rarely terrible but they tended towards mediocrity. Their usual ceiling was a 3-loss season. Only last year (11-2 with a bowl win) and in 1984 (10-2 with a bowl loss) were they able to better that.

MGlobules

November 21st, 2012 at 9:20 PM ^

about these schools--a kind of wierd snobbery prevails (they're not good enough for us! I'm going to have a fainting spell!) Men are often more hysterical than women. 

Like I said, all it will take is the first ass-whipping for us, OSU, Nebraska, etcetera, and Rutgers or Maryland will be bona fide members. The day will arrive sooner rather than later. 

Yeoman

November 21st, 2012 at 5:45 PM ^

I wonder if people were this pissed off when Ohio joined the conference in 1912, and we just don't know it because they actually spoke to each other instead of typing on computers? "They aren't a fit academicaly or culturally and their athletic teams suck" etc. etc.

They were coming off a season where they lost to Case and had scoreless ties with Western Reserve and Oberlin--they can't even beat tiny private schools in their own state and they want to join the Western Conference??? They had never beaten a conference member in a game of football, before they joined. Never.

 

jsquigg

November 21st, 2012 at 6:08 PM ^

Pretty much the only thing saving Maryland from being buried in debt was a GM-like bailout from the Big 10......and they got it.  Jim Delaney will be repping Maryland gear if he's still alive in thirty years when Maryland wins the Big 10.

baorao

November 21st, 2012 at 6:19 PM ^

as a series of infrequent home-and-homes. what Maryland and Rutgers are doing when they're not playing Michigan will rank right alongside with what our non-msu/osu opponents are doing each week. which is to say i'll wait until game week and then read the MGoPreview and if they make the front page of ESPN i'll click there too. who knows, maybe the new markets will actually get us back on to ABC during the regular season once in a while.

lhglrkwg

November 21st, 2012 at 6:19 PM ^

Maryland and Rutgers do not really fit geographically, culuturally, or athletically. It's all about money and I sort of feel like Delaney is exploiting my (our) love of our respective teams to force this cash grab down our throats

jerseyblue

November 21st, 2012 at 7:38 PM ^

Just to fill everyone in. With the exception of former columnist Jerry Izenberg the Star Ledger has always been as friendly to Rutgers football as the Freep was to UM football during the RichRod era.

Manxman21

November 21st, 2012 at 7:39 PM ^

I used to live a mile from Rutgers. In my younger days I had some friends visit on a Friday night. We were out for a few then decided we'd try to get tickets to the Rutgers-Northwestern game. No trouble getting tickets. Actually a couple of my boys slept in the stands across three or four seats. The only thing I really remember from the game other then the empty seats was the 10-15 Northwestern fans shaking their keys at the Rutgers students. I think the Rutgers students thought they were showing off their shiny new Camaro keys.

Low Key Recidivist

November 21st, 2012 at 7:59 PM ^

Brian,

You're beginning to sound like one of the blue-hairs.  Need to just let it go.

FWIW, MD I think is a good addition.  Rutgers, I'm going to have to adjust to a bit.

Their admission doesn't diminish the previous Conference accomplishments, and they could potentially be excellent additions once setttled in.  If you want to focus on nefarious motives fine; go stew, but it isn't going  to change anything.