Screw It: S-E-C
So guys. I am considering the inevitable endgame here where the Big Ten adds Georgia Tech and some other program that isn't Pitt to go to 16 teams and this is Michigan's division:
- Michigan
- OSU
- Michigan State
- Penn State
- Maryland
- Rutgers
- Georgia Tech
- Purdue Or Something
Michigan would then play members of the other division once every eight years. Goodbye, Iowa, Wisconsin, Little Brown Jug, taking over Ryan Field, etc. It was nice playing you those four times, Nebraska. At that point wouldn't you just be like "screw it" and prefer the following?
SEC NORTH
- Michigan
- OSU
- Georgia
- Tennessee
- South Carolina
- Missouri
- Vanderbilt
- Kentucky
Academics? Sure. Academics. This is all about the books.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:05 PM ^
I think the measure of success for an athletic department is whether it can pay for itself without becoming a drain on the rest of the university. Departments like M and OSU with cash-cow football programs have little trouble breaking even so they pursue status (more titles in minor sports) and expansion (more and better paying jobs for coaches, admins, and other employees within the department), but a school like Maryland or Rutgers might be at risk of losing money and might find it easier to stay afloat if they're going 2-6 in the B1G than if they're going 4-4 in the ACC or 5-3 in the Big East.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:15 PM ^
That being said, I am really beginning to wonder whether the appropriate measure for most atheltic programs in this country (outside of the 20 or so that are profitable) really IS wins and success on the field. I would never argue that it won't be an appropriate measure of an AD's success, but I'm not convinced that is true for everyone. Why else would teams line up for the so-called "guarantee" (or, Baby Seal, as we term it) games, etc.? My guess is that in less than a decade, the money is it bringing in from the B1G will be used to reinstate the 7 or 8 sports they have recently cut, help pay for future expansions/renovations/etc.
Not saying this is how it SHOULD be, how I would LIKE it to be, but IMO, where it IS.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^
Consider this a reply to both above comments....but Maryland is, according to this linked article,
on unstable enough financial ground that it recently had to cut seven sports just to make it possible to get out of debt by 2019, an estimate that relies on its football and basketball attendance increasing.
That is an exceedingly dire state of affairs. On the one hand, you can see why they figured they needed the Big Ten's money. On the other, that picture of Byrd Stadium is their likely reality for the next several years. They're being astoundingly stupid if they think being 2-6 in the Big Ten will give them the attendance they need. For Maryland, this is a Band-Aid move.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:43 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 1:48 PM ^
All they'll get is the same thing everyone else gets. A 1/14th share. So while everyone else is using the BTN money to upgrade facilities, hire good coaches, etc., plus filling their stadium, Maryland will be trying to figure out how to stretch that money so it can still have a volleyball team.
November 20th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^
Oh, I'm not worried about them providing competition. I'm just pointing out that the conference will be propping them up while receiving little value in return.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^
That should be part of the naming requirement for the conference, that we have an n at the end of the spelling for each team beyond 10. So, when we inevitably expand to 16, we'll now be the Big Tennnnnn.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^
Leaders and Legends sucked, but really the only downside was we wouldn't play Wisconsin as much. But now......just eurgh....
November 19th, 2012 at 12:58 PM ^
How about we add a third Division, The Losers where we add the worst teams. Think of it as relegation.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^
I am a troglodyte as regards expansion. I hate it and I don't get it. Honestly, I wasn't that thrilled with adding Penn State, and also with adding Nebraska. I don't get it. I just don't get it.
I like the Big 10 with 10 teams. Not with 11. Or 12. Or 14. Or 16. Maryland? Rutgers? What is the world coming to? It just doesn't make sense . . . who is driving this nonsense? Of course, in some way it is about the money. It always is about the money. I can't help thinking about the Churchill quip:
Churchill: Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?
Woman: My goodness, Mr. Churchill… Well, I suppose… we would have to discuss terms, of course…
Churchill: Would you sleep with me for five pounds?
Woman: Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!
Churchill: Madam, we’ve already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.
The Big 10, with DB complicit, is whoring after the money, and shown that nothing else really matters, no matter what veneer they dress things up with.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:09 PM ^
If he didn't actually say that, kudos to whoever came up with it.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:33 PM ^
I have a hard time seeing Georgia being willing to travel to Ann Arbor or Columbus once a year in that situation.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:34 PM ^
also working with the Maroons to get up from Division III and bring the Monsters of the Midway back? They have a stadium with a capacity of 1650.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^
I would legit rather see, somehow, U of C go division 1 again again than this bullshit. I mean, U of C has the money. I wonder if their opinion of major college sports has changed in the past 60 years or so. Probably not.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:40 PM ^
The University of Chicago's trustees saw this happening sixty plus years ago! They understood the "student" part of "student-athlete" was being de-emphasized by the year.
I doubt they have changed their minds and I am sure this Big 10 realignment further reenforces their position but they still are a conference member.
Count me in on resurrrecting the University of Chicago's football program if we absolutely have to expand. Also, it's time to start seriously talking about Notre Dame entering the conference. These options are infinitely better solutions than Rutgers and Maryland.
I am dreaming of course as the above will never happen but if it did the excitement would far exceed that of the current proposal.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:15 PM ^
If you know much about the current D-III programs at U Chicago, you'd realize that plenty of Michigan IM teams would take down the Maroons in many of their varsity sports. A friend of mine from high school goes there and that place may have the most academic and least athletic student body in the country. Okay, Cal Tech probably wins that but it's close.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:40 PM ^
Oh I am not saying that UC would return to their early glory. I just think if you are going to bring a whipping boy to the conference, you might as well give us one that has tradition with the conference.
The best solution would be to leave the B1G as is and wait to see if better options exist.
Maryland and Rutgers added will only infuriate the fans of existing members.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:34 PM ^
What makes you think we can't do a take over of UMD instead of just Ryan field? Lots of alumni up there...I can guarantee I would be there every other year if they were in our division.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:35 PM ^
Georgia Tech's season ticket sales would increase exponentially (which, admittedly, isn't that significant of an accomplishment).
November 19th, 2012 at 12:37 PM ^
we're sacrificing playing the same Big Ten teams we've played for almost 100 years so we can play Maryland and Rutgers. I don't care how much money is in it, this move officially made the B1G expanding a bad thing. I don't want to play those two bottom-feeders, I want to play OUR bottom-feeders. I'd rather play Indiana and Illinois all season than have to play either of those schools once.
And mark my words, Rutgers may be ranked now, but they're going to be a middle of the pack big ten team at best.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:57 PM ^
I want to play OUR bottom-feeders!!
November 19th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cp069Y_P-9M
I can't even embed right now and don't even care. Screw the Big10.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 1:19 PM ^
I worry about whether this business model (replacing tight regional and historical ties for large, far-flung markets with no history or commonalities) is stable in the long-run. My affinity for the Big Ten is driven by the fact that the core 9 schools have been playing for over a century; if we're playing Wisconsin or Minnesota once or twice a decade, do I still care for the conference as much? We'll see.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^
I, for one, will by raging against this injustice every other year. You know, during the 45 minute car ride. As I am driving my entire family to experience the joy of Michigan football without having to bring two young children on an airplane. At a stadium where I can have Grandpa and Grandma bring them to their home 15 minutes away when they inevitably want to leave before halftime.
This . . . stinks?
November 19th, 2012 at 12:39 PM ^
Lincoln to College Park is going to be a long bus ride for the non-revenue sports.
Think about the children!
November 19th, 2012 at 1:02 PM ^
20.5 hours.
Way to go, Delany!
November 19th, 2012 at 1:24 PM ^
Not our problem, but yeah.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:39 PM ^
Honestly, I can't wait to see Michigan football/bball/lax play in DC. Move to a nine game conference schedule and we play the opposite division teams almost the same as now.
The sky is not falling. This was going to happen now or in a few years, Notre dame just sped things up.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^
I'm not interested in joining the SEC...not even a little bit. While I don't like adding Maryland and Rutgers from the quality of athletics persepctive, it makes sense geographically, academically, and, oh yeah, financially.
Grabbing the DC and New York markets helps us in lots of ways. For football recruiting, the benefit is relatively minor. But it's huge for other sports (Basketball, lacrosse).
When we add UVA and VaTech, then we'll be adding fertile football recruiting ground, and that will allow even more "southern creep" where we can snatch-up a few good players every year from the south.
But to get a realistic recruiting footprint in Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Alabama, etc., we would need to be playing teams from those states every year...the SEC "North" doesn't give us that.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:47 PM ^
and that seems to be a dealbreaker... so far. UVA would make sense based on how expansion has gone thus far.
November 19th, 2012 at 2:18 PM ^
I know it is kind of a strange technicality...but neither is Nebraska. They were outed from the AAU just before they joined the B1G.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:49 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 3:47 PM ^
VTech would more likely go SEC. I see the SEC pushing hard to pick them up and to go after an NC team since WVa went Big 12. Florida blocks Free Shoes University and USCe blocks Clemson.
November 19th, 2012 at 4:03 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 12:44 PM ^
Meh, it's kind of inevitable. Might as well get some good schools in the process. I'd hate to be fighting over some no-nothing school like Rut...oh...never mind.
Actually, not a horrible make-up. GT is a decent little player nationally, has great academics, and always seems a bit out of place in the SEC. Maryland is a fit geographically. It could be worse - you could be Texas playing WVU.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:06 PM ^
Georgia Tech in the ACC. Georgia is in the SEC.
November 20th, 2012 at 2:43 PM ^
I was referring to the news that GT would probably join the SEC if the ACC continues to implode.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
Here are the assmuptions the B1G seem to be making
1) There are increasing returns to conference "n" and potentially costs to staying put, regardless of what is out there.
2) Contiguous state footprint is important. Since there are no NE schools of note that would be a good fit (sorry BC) and there is always going to be some ACC/Big east overlap, capture DC-NYC corridor and hope that NE cable providers will (per below) add in BTN. Leave the SE to be a three-way fight btwn SEC/ACC/BIG 12.
3) Alumni will be packing the stadiums at Rutgers and MD. I think this is not a wonderful idea even if it turns out to be correct: you want robust home crowds....
4) WRT cable contracts, the question(s) are:
A) What is the additional likelihood that bundles in the Megalopolis will get BTN
and/or
B) What is the expected marginal value of existing price per viewer for bundling BTN?
They had better hope that the answers to A) and B) are "a lot"
November 19th, 2012 at 12:45 PM ^
SEC north with Michigan and OSU? YES PLEASE.
Yes, please.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^
I just went to the Big East website to refresh my memory as to it membership. I clicked on one school and the site almost immediately launched a big video ad for a car. Amatuer Hour.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:49 PM ^
Caveats Apply.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:51 PM ^
This makes no sense whatsoever. People keep saying 'money', but I don't even understand how this could bring any financial benefit to the conference. No one on the East Coast cares about Maryland or Rutgers football. They're not going to convince East Coast cable operators to put BTN on a basic cable tier based on Maryland and Rutgers. Hell, it took them a whole year to convince Comcast to put BTN on a basic cable tier in the existing Big Ten footprint. And as for recruiting, Maryland and New Jersey have never been known as particularly talent-loaded states. The elite Big Ten programs can already go into those states and have their pick of the top prospects precisely because there are no local elite programs to compete with. I don't see how having a presence there benefits the conference in recruiting.
This really makes no sense whatsoever.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:52 PM ^
is as a play for teams 15 and 16. This has to lead to that. By itself, it seems like a weird move.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
It's not just about the BTN (though it is partly about the BTN) but about all the TV monies. the new contract is up to for negotiation in 2017. Adding states with a population of 15 million people to the Big Ten "footprint" makes a difference to the expected value of that contract. It probably also increases the value of the BTN too.
November 19th, 2012 at 12:50 PM ^
If - unlikely as it may be - we stick at 14 teams but expand to schedule nine conference games then, then playing three teams from the other division each year but scrapping protected cross-overs means you could ensure that you'd play everyone at least four times a decade. Hardly ideal but not much worse than at present.
Even with a 16 team "conference" you would be playing every team in the other division once every four years, not once every eight. Assuming, that is, a 9 game schedule and no protected "rivalry".
November 19th, 2012 at 12:51 PM ^
SEC-SEC-SEC-SEC!!!
November 19th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
ESSSS EEEEEE SEEEEEEE!
November 19th, 2012 at 12:53 PM ^
November 19th, 2012 at 12:55 PM ^
Rutgers is not next. Instead, we are bringing back original Big Ten member University of Chicago into the fold.
The Maroons shall rise from the ashes!
Comments