in the same division? Not going to happen.
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 State
- Penn State
- 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?
- South Carolina
Academics? Sure. Academics. This is all about the books.
lucre. Empty seats, ultimately, mean less than money in some people's pockets.
Shakes fist in air.
Ummm, hello people, wakie wakie...NJ and DC/NOVA all have BTN on Comcast and Cox. It is on the upper tier sports package, just like...wait for it, wait for it, the midwest!@@! Dish and Direct have had BTN since its inception, and now you pay for it nationally, not regionally. I think Verizon has it, but they are not a major player.
Carrier fees isn't going to increase revenue as you peoples keep suggesting. This is a great academic fit, but by all other measures is litearlly the worst desicion ever.
You spend a ton of money on a nice dinner, fine wine, and then ask for a twinkie for desert. The BIG just made its first huge blunder that will cost us all big time long term. Seriously, look at Utah and CO and what they are doing in the PAC12. Oh yea, fing nothing.
I want to go independent, to hell with the BIG.
BTN is on basic tier everywhere in Big Ten footprint. This move sucks, but it's not on account of Jim Delany misunderstanding how cable tv works.
I am all for capitalism and Making Moar Money and profits and stuff; I'm a business dude myself. But dammit not like this. I'm also for the "not-for-profit" sector, which was what the Big Ten is, right? A NOT-FOR-PROFIT!? Maybe this can be our answer to ESSSS EEEE SEEEEE!!!! We could chant 'NOT FOR PROFIT! NOT FOR PROFIT!'
It's still not for profit. Talk to the lacrosse team or swim team or volleyball team who only get new facilities because of MOAR MONEY moves like this. It's not like some CEO is stuffing his pockets. We bitched about Crisler needing renovation, we insist that we don't put up adds in the Big House. Well, things have to get paid for some how.
...wait until they have to get up for a noon game against Rutgers or Maryland.
And if Maryland is having a hard time coming close to filling their stadium now, wait till everyone gets jacked up for Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa, Indiana, Northwestern and Illinois coming town.
While I don't see it, I'm sure Delany & co have worked their abacuses and done the number sand somehow, due to cable TV revenue, there are few extra bucks for everyone involved.
But from a sports standpoint, it gives me one more reason I'm glad I gave up my season tickets. I'll just scalp a few games I year that I care about and pocket the rest.
What a joke - UMD fans hate the move and B1G hate the move. Result: Do it anyway.
I just want to be on record saying I approve of this move, so in a couple years when we all like it we can look back at this post and you can all e-high five me.
If so, why would we like it? Why should I get excited about the fact we'll play fewer games against Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota and some other schools I care about? Or even worse, that some school will sneak into a championship game not having played a couple of the 3-4 schools that are actually good in the B1G that year b/c schedules will be so unbalanced? Or in bball, potentially playing IU, MSU, Illinois, etc only once a year so we can play in Piscataway, NJ?
Think of it this way: when Arkansas was announced as our first big non-conf "get" in the post-ND era, if it had been Maryland instead, how excited would the fan base be? Just replicate that feeling every year, and we're there.
I certainly don't expect someone against it to know why they'll change their mind down the road, but I'm betting they will. The landscape is changing, and we are ahead of the curve, like usual. Progress is hard to see at the beginning. When MP3 players came out I thought, "I can easily burn my mp3s to a CD and I already have this sweet discman, why do I need an MP3 player too?" There was a big picture that I didn't see yet, but the people who were making decisions obivously did.
A lot might depend on who the next two end up being. If its UVA and UNC or something like that, we're looking great. And when lax takes off and becomes as popular as college basketball (at least in certain parts of the country) we're looking great there too.
If it wasn't a panic move, why wouldn't we be hearing about it until the last minute (at least in UMD's case)?
Read this article where Tom McMillen (former UMD bball player and now a regent) notes he voted against it b/c it was a rushed process.
Loh (UMD president) says that with a new generation not wanting to attend games (student sections around the world, unite!) it's about getting "eyeyballs." Well, how many "eyeballs" are they going to get for the bevy of crappy matchups that UMD and Rutgers will bring in football (and it's basically all about football - the BTN adds subscribers based on that primarily)?
More importantly, who says those "eyeballs" will pay, in sufficient amounts or at all? "The future" include a cord-cutting generation that increasingly says "Well, I've got my iPhone and Hulu Plus - I'm good." They are not going to pay extra for UMD-Purdue, Rutgers-Indiana or UNC-Minnesota.
You're going to see in media what you are now seeing in tickets (e.g., less season tix, more StubHub) - pay as you go (i.e., instead of paying $100 for cable each month, I'll pay $5 or $10 a game to watch OSU-Nebraska or Michigan-MSU). For that you need quality, not quantity. They are going the wrong way.
One of the big selling points college sports has is tradition - for Delaney, Brandon & co sakes, I hope they are right that throwing a big part of that away makes sense.
I appreciate your argument, even if I don't agree with it. Much better than RUTGERS SUXORS!!!
I think iPads and Hulu is fine for catching jan episode of The Office, but when it comes to sports, I want to watch it on my big TV, and I want to watch it live. I think most people still feel this way.
Who knows about McMillan and his statements, since he's against it. I highly doubt Delany is just rushing into this, but we may never know. Just because we didn't know about it doesn't mean it hasn't been in the works for a while.
How about Big Ten Future and Historical divisions?
Michigan State (since not one of the first 8 to join)
Purdue (Should be in Historical but couldn't make it fit)
Hell knows, OREGON STATE. Yeah, Oregon State.
I know writers aren't making millions of dollars, but all the media that makes its living off college sports acting so self-righteous about realignment is annoying.
Put me on record for approving this expansion as well.
At the end of the day, there is a major shake-out happening, whether we like it or not. One of the BCS conferences will fall away or become irrelevant (i.e., Big East) and the remaining conferences, ACC, SEC, B1G, PAC 12 and Big 12 will become super-regional or national brands.
B1G is merely trying to get in front of this impending wave.
[FYI - NJ.com says that Rutgers will start playing in B1G in the 2014-15 academic year.]
I think we should go with 3 divisions:
Leaders - Ohio State, Penn State, Wisconsin, Illinois, Purdue
Legends - Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, MSU, Northwestern
Leftovers - Maryland, Rutgers, Minnesota, Indiana
Minnesota has a much better football tradition than MSU, the last few years notwithstanding.
It's obvious, we will now add two west coast teams: Arizona and Colorado (no reason behind this). National recruiting advantage!
At this point, let's just blow this baby up! Total world domination! The B1G should be calling up every single worth-while institution today and say:
"We are going to 16 - with or without you - you have until the end of the week to put together your 'intention letters'. If your institution declines our offer, we wish you good luck with your pursuit of a new conference after we drop an A-bomb on collegiate athletics. P.S. To hell with Notre Dame"
I mean, why even stop at 16? You know how people are always saying the power teams will break away from the NCAA and form their own association so as not to have to share the money with Indiana State? The Big Ten can make this happen. Just swallow up teams two by two, using the lure of the BTN, until the Big Ten has 70 teams in it and becomes the new NCAA, complete with its own TV network. Then it can have an "Atlantic Coast" divison, a "Southeastern" division, a "Pacific" division, and so on.
Building on the Bo and Woody Era, thanks to Jim Delany, we've aggressively reshaped ourselves so that our conference will forevermore be known as the "Big Four and Little ... 10? 12?"
Well at least you could be assured that the composite SAT scores of the SEC North would be higher than the SEC South in Brian's second scenario.
I am generally unenthused with the idea, though the more I think about it, I'm at least sort of OK with it. It gives me an extra reason to visit some friends in the DC/NYC areas, and at least they're schools with a long football history (not all of it bad, either).
The major weird thing for me is that the NFL rules here along the east coast... it'll take a lot of work to get college ball on the radar of many folks. My bet is that the crowds will look a lot like they do at Ryan field most of the time.
Rutgers fans seem really excited:
"What a great day for Rutgers. Now let's run the table and hopefully go into the Big Ten in 2014 as back to back Big East and hopefully Orange Bowl champs!!!"
"Perhaps the biggest day in Rutgers athetic history!!!! What a windfall for the school. Perhaps now we can get those canceled sports back too?"
"During my days on the banks, we were an all boys school and our biggest game was Princeton. To see the Scarlet line up against the likes go Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State on a regular basis is a dream come true. We've come a long way baby! "
"In a perfect world, it would have been nice to see Big East succeed, but RU was always the red headed step-child there. Heck, they didn't even want us when they decided to add football - it was years before they let us in for hoops. It was originally and always will be a basketball league first. So is the ACC, which is why they can't pay their teams what the B1G can. Football drives the TV deals."
"I can't believe this...sports culture at RU will completely change overnight. Awesome."
"Rutgers football is already better than many of the Big-10 programs." [Only 1 flamebait comment so far]
Rutgers, I can totally understand being thrilled about this. Who wouldn't want a lifeboat out of the Big East? Of all the stakeholders in this expansion, Rutgers is the clear winner.
This is Jim Delany forcing his hand on everyone about their scheduling. No more baby seals, you will get one of the 15 other respectable members of the B16(?) conference. This should ensure a team in the playoff every year. That is his line of thinking is what I am guessing.
The B1G teams will most certainly grow to a 9-10 game conference schedule. I mean, why pay Colorado to come to Ann Arbor or schedule a home-and-home with Oregon State? The B1G will now have it's own 'tier' of in-conference cupcakes to play!
Not happy with Delany for adding two more red teams. Maybe ad Kansas and Kentucky to balance out the color scheme?
This is how my sister fills out her March Madness bracket, and she always seems to do reasonably well...
Two more teams will come after this for the inevitable 16 team "power" conference status. Who will it be? Virginia and Virginia Tech? 'Cuse and Georgia Tech? Both Techs? Virginia and 'Cuse? Is there a permutation anyone actually likes?
I dislike both teams we're taking in Maryland and Rutgers. They do nothing for my sense of creating a more competitive conference. This only gives off the sense of dilution. Didn't everyone agree the B1G Kool-aid tasted fine with Nebraska? Stop adding water!
As a native New Yorker now living in CT, neither of these teams will influence my decision to (or not to) purchase the Big Ten network. In fact, they make me less inclined to do so. Before, the Big Ten at least seemed a little bit exclusive. Now, it's a crap "uber"conference with, more-often-than-not, crappy weekly match-ups.
All I know is that the inclusion of these two new teams is terrible for Penn State, which used to own both Maryland and Rutgers heads-up for recruits (given the draw of playing on the Big Ten stage). So now this new "power" conference allignment also weakens the "attractive" eastern Big Ten school to create weak-sauce parity. Guhhhhh.
Can OSU, Michigan and Nebraska join the Big 12? That would be cool with me.
I can't wait to see Delany's shit-eating grin as he talks out of his ass in explaining how Maryland and Rutgers are outstanding additions to the conference.
Beyond trying to get through Delany's BS, I'm sure Heiko can get his thoughts on the bubble screen.
until they have destroyed everything that was once great about college football and the Big Ten.
True, 11 teams was a wobbly config.
Adding Nebraska brought value, though perhaps less than what people could easily see: Fantastic football tradition, questionable performance in other sports (baseball, basketball, hockey, track, wrestling), but in general a good university. This add-on didn't occur without some tremendous tradition losses. Like the once white-hot Nebraska-Oklahoma series, and the growing hate between Nebraska and Texas since the teams started meeting each other more regularly in the Big XII.
Adding Maryland (an ACC school as long as I can remember) and Rutgers (once and independent turned Big East) to the Big Ten? Well just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
I don't see the incremental value other than maybe Maryland basketball. And if Georgia Tech comes on board, then Boston College has to be the next ridiculous add on, right?
Not only does the Big East look more doomed and non-sensical than ever before, the Big Ten is losing it's identity as a Mid-West conference.
I should have seen all of this coming, but it doesn't make me any less depressed.
In organizations, bigger is not necessarily better. The real danger is that you lose the many little things that made the sum seem that much greater.
I see all this and sometimes I miss the SWC. It had a geographic identity. It had Texas, Arkansas and Texas A&M. This was where the veer and wishbone evolved with Bear Bryant, Broyles, Royal, Emory Bellard, and a little known coach named Bill Yeoman (veer).
Now it's dead and the pieces are shuffled all over the national board.
I have to ask this question: How long until the Big Ten abandons Indiana or Minnesota, and starts looking for new girlfriends? Alabama?
Before Friedgen, the last time I remember Maryland being any good at football was 1976. Block M copyright attorneys got right on that.
With respect to the SEC, it's big, fat and obscene, but at least geographically and "culturally" it all makes sense. When you say "SEC champion" I know what that means.
"Big Ten Champion" with 14 or 16 teams spread out all over god's green acre? This is just dumb.
Let's call it what it is: the dumbest decision ever made by the Big Ten commissioner.
Are you kidding me? Maryland? I just want to win The Game!
- Coach Mora after intense presser with Heiko on the Monday before OSU
You're all just nervous because they're going to challenge Michigan for B1G championships. Stop being pussies. Yeah, they have traditionally strong football programs, but...
...oh wait, I thought we added Notre Dame and Oklahoma. Nevermind, I'm pissed off now.
M and OSU should screw the Big Ten. Grab PSU and Nebraska, get USC, Oregon, ND, Texas, Alabama, Florida and the rest of the blue blooded football elite and all go independent. Have a scheduling alliance between the big boys, negotiate our own TV deal with ESPN/Fox/the highest bidder and let all of the conferences fend for themselves without the cash cows around to support the Purdues and Indianas of the world.
The big name programs generate the revenues that the Delany-type tools exploit. Its time to take back college football from his ilk.
The problem with this whole plan is that Delany is thinking too small. He's limiting himself to domestic markets and doing nothing to increase the Big Ten's appeal in the foreign market.
Instead, Delany should be looking to add teams in the UK or Europe. Given the football traditions at Maryland and Rutgers, the fact that these colleges will not have actual football programs in place should not be an insurmountable problem. Adding either Cambridge or Oxford would make the Big Ten the undisputed masters of the London market, while inviting Heidelburg (and I don't mean the one in Ohio) would give us access to both Berlin and Munich.
Okay, maybe the logistics and travel would be a little much. How 'bout McGill in Montreal? They play football with 12 guys on the field up there. Might give Ohio a fighting chance against SEC teams at least...
Don't be silly, Oxford or Cambridge on their own will never get you the London market. You'd have to get two of three from a list of University College London, King's College, and Imperial in addition to Oxbridge.
I say we go to 20 teams. Then the divisions can be old and new, and we can get back to, y'know, playing actual B10 teams.
I really like this idea- has a real USA vs. the world feel to it
run by the greediest bastards who may have ever lived, maintains some semblence of tradition and regional/geographical identity in their conferences.
Green Bay, Chicago, Minnesota, Detroit.
This is frozen tundra, rust belt, working class, kick ass pro football.
At one point Tampa Bay was in the old "NFC Central", and appropriately horrible and out of place.
When the NFL went to 32 teams somebody at the head office had the common sense not to shake the snowglobe and throw the Green Bay Packers into the NFC West or the Chicago Bears into the NFC East.
Gee, why didn't they? What a golden opportunity! What if we could....?
Because it would have been wrong, that's why.
is still in the NFC East.
Why would Pitt not be on the radar? Brian said they would definetily not be an option, but i did not see a reason.
Why would they be? The biggest reason for expansion is $$$ and Pitt doesn't add to the footprint or bring a large fan base.