In Defense of Delany II
Just the area for recruiting was almost necessary for the B1G to compete with the talent the rest of the nation has in their back yard
1)
Check out this website:
http://www.cornnation.com/2014/2/12/5404912/college-football-recruits-2…
2)
Choose 4 and 5 stars recruits
3)
Zoom in on B1G territory including NJ and Maryland and compare with the SEC
PLUS: it get Michigan, OSU and Penn State in the largest media market.
I guess your comment was just far too special
not "Well maybe adding those teams wasn't all bad?"
but instead we're going with Delany Is Actually Good
Just because
This thread feels like:
I mean, we got Peppers before Rutgers ever played a game in the Big Ten, so it's not like we couldn't recruit in that area without them. We're doing well in Georgia without adding teams from the south.
I'm looking at you, Georgia Tech
it's pointless, but still kind of awesome?
I was thinking more like Caddyshack 2, but that infers that the first thread was great when in fact it sucked just like this thread. So, I'm not really sure of the proper sequel to parrallel this with.
but totally agree.
So get ready for In Defense of Delay III: Oh Hell No!
I'm expecting this thread because the football schedule was released today.
Delany can wake up tomorrow and propose that the B1G expands to 16 by adding Wyoming and Louisiana-Monroe. He can propose whatever he wants. It's the B1G Presidents who actually vote "yes or no" on his ideas. Delany serves at their will.
That said --- among the things that Delany does deserve credit for, IMO:
(1) Getting the B1G into the BCS, while preserving our conference's ties with the Rose Bowl as much as possible, back in the late 1990s.
(2) Championing the idea of the Big Ten Network, and ensuring that the member schools had a large equity stake in said network. This idea was ahead of its time and we're in a better spot vs. conferences like the SEC and ACC whose member schools have no equity in their conference network.
(3) Championing the idea of instant replay back in the early 2000s. We were the first conference to introduce replay and this has proven itself over the years to have been a good idea.
I disagree with (2) strongly. It's largely the driving force behind the craptacular schedules. I don't give a damn about $ for non profits. Stop building $10 mil golf clubhouses at a place that's too cold to play golf 2/3 of the year
The other two are decent. Although the BCS was despised, it was a stepping stone to the playoff
(I'm not picking on Michigan here - just using them as an example; the trend is basically the same across most schools).
Michigan rather famously didn't play any MAC schools until 1995 (Miami University). Always had a robust OOC schedule, playing multiple schools per year like ND, Colorado, UCLA, FSU, BC, Miami, Syracuse. et cetera.
Then from 2000-2006, there was a MAC school annually --- sometimes two. Still 3 years (2002, 2003, 2006) with 2 "Power" opponents (which was a better ratio than nearly anybody else in the nation!). But not nearly at the same trend as in the 1990s and prior.
There is no way that Rutgers has 600,000 actual fans in the NYC media market.
Link to the source for that chart?
Rutgers football rarely even gets a mention on NYC local TV news or in NYC papers. Even the New Jersey papers do not pay much attention to Rutgers football.
Yeah i'm calling bullshit. Rutgers probably doesn't have 3% support on its own campus, let alone an international hub like NYC
I saw someone post that number yesterday which comes from an old NYT article, but it must be including parts of Jersey in the "NYC Market," even still that seems generous.
For NY/NJ schools, I'd say Syracuse is definitely more popular in the city. Then teams like us, OSU, Penn State, Notre Dame.
And they stopped playing football in 2002.
You mean Delaney has a second account on here.
This was clearly meant as a diary....
Things kind of quiet back in Rosemont?
Their shitty coverage created a negative vibe for that game
These defenses of Delany amount to "he's very good at shitting on tradition in order to make more money." You could defend an innocent man all the way to death row that way.
What if I were to tell you that many traditions STAY important because they are successful and make money?
There are SO many examples:
Rutgers played the first college football game. That could be a very deep tradition, but who cares because they haven't been succesful recently?
How about Minnesota football? 7 national titles. Powerhouse for decades. But, not successful recently, so not one of the great traditions listed when you ask people.
How about the Southwest Conference? It had Phi Slama Jama, Great football teams and rivalries. Its been gone for a while now and no one is clamoring for it.
Why is OSU v. UM such a great tradition? In part, because both teams have been near the top of the national polls most years and playing for conference titles.
When it comes to conferences, money and success are intertwined. Delany may have even preserved or strengthened certain conference traditions in the long run by keeping us at or near the top.
You have to weigh traditions against the need to evolve to maintain success. Its not as easy as it seems and success isnt measured overnight.
Agee 100%.
If you were to hypothetically expel the B1G's most recent additions (including PSU and Nebraska) you would wind up with a B1G that is very traditional, a 10 team league that existed unchanged for 40 years. You would also wind up with the worst Power 5 league in the country with by far the worst recruiting footprint.
OP, you could have had a point if you actually tried to make one, but...
I guess what you are saying is that Delaney's decision (assuming it was his decision) to expand with Rutgers and Maryland opened up a pipeline in 2 talent rich metro areas (NY & DC)?
I agree with that and add in that DC and NYC are both huge markets for B1G grads and it makes more sense.
Delany is not.