Depends on if they can hire a Steve Spurrier caliber coach.
spoiler alert: i linked this
Depends on if they can hire a Steve Spurrier caliber coach.
Leach for... Edsall. RUs coach is pretty good and Schiano turned down a few jobs before going to the NFL. My money is on RU, but it's whichever school decides to invest some money into their program.
It seemed that Edsall made the best of a bad situation at UConn (they did end up winning the Big East the year we beat them in the opener). That does not mean that Edsall is a good coach, but I am not sure he has gotten enough of a chance given all his quarterbacks getting injured this year.
I agree with you that there is also no evidence that Edsall is Spurrier, either.
they'll need to hire a high profile on his way out of coaching type of coach like Holtz (how do you show a lisp while typing?) to transistion the team while the in flux of all that B1G money starts flowing in.
...not sure if either school is looking to fire/hire this year, but that might be a good fit at either school.
Isth a penith.
how could I not think of that! Thanks!
Maybe they should hire both Lou and Mark May as co-head coaches and get equally bad commentary--er...coaching--from both.
I promise to ignore both like I ignore South Carolina.
Yeah but the rest of the SEC aren't ignoring them, right? They did join the SEC in 1992, not that far in the past.
Yep. As soon as they hire Steve Spurrier.
Honestly, is Spurrier really all that great? His first few years at South Carolina was completely mediocre. It's not like Maryland or Rutgers has to hit an absolute home run. If they could even get a Dantoni-lite who focuses on defense and in-state recruits...
Brady Hoke's first few years at Ball State and SDSU were pretty mediocre too. Takes awhile to build a team when you aren't at a great program.
Hoke had 1 bad year at SDSU before turning that program around and trouncing Navy at the Poinsettia Bowl. I figured it took him longer at Ball State since that was his first time being a HC (hiring coordinators, dealing with more bureaucracy, figuring out exactly how to run a program etc...) in addition to having to turn that program around.
Maryland's issue wasn't really the hiring of Edsall, it was the firing of "The Fridge" (as some of my friends that went there lovingly call him). He wasn't a bad coach, Maryland just got ansty looking for the next "new it guy".
Led Duke to an ACC title while he was head coach there. The only ACC conference title they've won since 1962.
Florida joined the SEC in 1933. Between 1933 and when Spurrier arrived they 'won' 3 SEC titles (had to vacant all due to ncaa violations). From 1990-2001 while Spurrier was head coach they won 6 SEC titles and their first NC.
At South Carolina he led them to the first ever ranking in the Top 10 at the end of the season last year and has a chance to do it again this year.
So the 3 colleges that he's coached at have essentially enjoyed some of, if not, the greatest success they've had in the last 50 years. I'd say that's a pretty good coach.
An in- state school?
Pretty ignorant to ignore Georgetown, American University, GWU, and many other respectable institutions.
Trying to come up with a snarky reply to this post has lead me to investigating whether the University of Puerto Rico has sports teams.
If they can hire coaches that have won national titles and/or coached in the NFL, then I'll listen. But right now, neither of those schools have remotely close to that kind of allure.
they played in the first college football game, and with Harvard. Remember, college football programs are built. I'm not happy with the way money is driving these changes, but I don't think it makes sense to assume that Rutgers or MD are just going to flatline, either.
I believe the first college football game was Princeton and Rutgers...a battle for the garden state
EDIT: I also see that they have a winning (3-2) record already against Sparty, so that's encouraging. Have never played us. . .
Rutgers and Maryland will be what is known in the WWE as "jobbers" or "enhancement talent." They will lose often and affirm the greatness of the better teams in the conference. And, of course, they will bring a lot of TV sets to BTN.
Well half the B1G are jobbers then. The noobs do bring more high school football talent...
UMD will attract more kids because they have the most dramatic uniformz. The recruiting influx hasn't materiallized yet, but the seeds are planted.
I think they'll both be like Northwestern/Illinois level. Usually middle of the pack but sometimes they'll catch a team off guard and lay the upset. I'm mostly upset about what 14 teams will do to the Big 10 and the tradition of playing a lot of the current Big 10 teams, not how good/bad Rutgers and Maryland are.
were created, rise and fall. More can come. Rutgers may kick a few team's asses quite early.
I agree completely. I don't mind adding new teams to the conference and, hey, they can't all be PSU, Nebraska, Texas and ND! But I will miss playing Purdue and Penn State regularly. Maybe we should go to a twelve game conference schedule and eliminate non-conference games. Sixteen teams in four conferences. You only miss three teams from your other division. Then four championship games then a tradiationally selected bowl season concurrent with a four-team playoff. I'd trade games vs. Central and UMass for that.
Ah, but I digress.
UVA, Penn St., and WVU routinely steal a lot of good talent out of both states and recently, the SEC has poached some high quality talent like Joe Haden, Jelani Jenkins, Will Hill, etc. Ohio State has had a presence in these states as well.
The point is that Rutgers and Maryland have been mediocre programs and let a lot of talent get out of the state, both of which have sizable pools to select from. Ditto for basketball. Maryland has respectable high school football right now, but New Jersey has even more untapped potential, IMO.
I don't know if they're going to be the next South Carolina, but it may not be a bad comparison. I don't see these schools becoming powerhouses, but I think that if they can be seen more on television and can upgrade their facilities, they can be at least Iowa or Northwestern-like.
yes, but penn state has this problem
is Jon Gruden. He's so awesome he can coach both teams at the same time, and beat himself to boot.
If being in the Big Ten allows Rutgers to tap into their own back yard more for top talent, then they can definitely be a player in the conference. Illinois is a good comparison. I would even go as far to say that they should better than Illinois. IU is surrounded by UM, ND and OSU and has to battle those schools to keep the elite players in the state. Rutgers has PSU nearby, but I don't think they are much of a recruiting threat right now with the major sanctions and that should help Rutgers alot.
to PSU, recruiting-wise.
And this is another reason I think both of these additions weaken the conference overall.
I see Rutgers being more successful than MD. Their AD was on Sirius on my way to work and he was talking about how they turned the tide a few years ago and ar starting to keep kids instate and thinks that offering players he opportnity to play in the B10 will only accelerate that trend.
This will certainly come at the expense of PSU who has almost owned NJ in the past and will be suffering under sanction for many years to come.
Rutgers could always hire Ron Zook. Then they'd be even more like Illinois.
I saw carolina with maryland and rutgers and thought news broke on the B1G adding UNC.
this is without any benefit from the Big Ten.
These two schools will be has good as the bottom half of the big ten from Day One.
The Cocks had a much bigger stadium that they filled even when they were atrocious at football. Then they hired two hall of fame coaches in a row and after about a decade with those two guys at the helm they finally had an upper echelon team in the SEC.
I don't see a similar scenario playing out here in the B1G.
Maryland and Rutgers don't have to compete with other powers in-state, either, unlike South Carolina/Clemson. So, in addition to what you say, the circumstances appear to be quite different in ways.
Actually, even as recently as 2009, South Carolina had attendence issues, averaging 8000 fans less than capacity.
Also, South Carolina fans at least got to see Florida, Alabama, Clemson, Georgia on a regular basis. Unlike the crapola that has been visiting Maryland or Rutgers lately.
I really don't think it's fair to castigate the east coast schools for not having huge football cathedrals like the schools in the midwest and the south. Do we sit around pissing on the 8 Pac-12 schools with football stadiums under 70,000 seats? College football is never going to be as big on the coasts as it is here and that's fine... if Oregon can become Oregon in a 54,000 seat stadium there's nothing stopping Maryland or Rutgers.
Did I just realize correctly that Randy Edsall just backed into a Big Ten head coaching position? Or has he...or will he...be excused of his duties before it all kicks in...?
Thread summary: No, until they do. Then, yes.
Rutgers could do it. So much talent coming out of New Jersey/York and landing at USC or in the SEC. A good coach coming in and just locking down the kids from Bosco could make them into the next South Carolina.
It better be 20 years minimum before either of these schools plays in the B10CG.
Oprah' s favorite thing is the Big Ten.
I'd start a new thread if I could but since I can't and I'll post it here:
What is the end game here? Is it, as the OP is assuming, to make RU or MD another USCe? Why? Sure, RU and/or MD would be thrilled, but why would Delany do that? The more important question is - who is making decisions here? What is the goal of that said decision-maker(s)?
The easy answer is Delany and he's doing it for money. But really, who is Delany working for, and does that boss demand short-term profits from him? If Delany does a lousy job, who fires him? All the B1G presidents? No. It's basically Michigan and OSU. Just look at the crude fan numbers that Nate Silver charted. OSU and Michigan are one, two in the whole nation. And if Michigan and OSU really wanted short term profit, they'd do something akin to the Longhorn network and squeeze every penny out of the B1G network. Oh, it's possible. Who is there to stop them? MSU? They're lucky to be in the B1G. PSU is, and will always be an outsider when it comes to B1G decision-making, and they won't be able to persuade Wisconsin and Iowa to side with them against the Michigan-OSU controlling party. So the way I view it, Delany largely works for Michigan and OSU, and what Michigan and OSU wants isn't really the short term profits. Then what could M&O possibly want? Of course, they want LONG TERM PROFITS! The way they structured the B1G network contract where everybody gets a fair share of money, you could even argue M&O is giving money away to the likes of Minnesota and Purdue. But it helps maintain conference stability. And in the eyes of M&O, maintaining conference stability is more profitable long term than squeezing every penny out of the little 10 short term.
So establishing viewership in the NE TV markets definitely is a step in that direction, long term profits. Or is it? The problem with that is, as Brian and a lot of others pointed out, it's not a given those NE TV money would roll in after a few years. And even if it does, you'll have to divide it by 14, minus the investment and the exit fees. Doesn't exactly scream long term profts, especially for the two B1G decision-makers. Furthermore, Delany isn't stupid. He knows adding RU and MD is going to dilute the whole product, which will NOT help with the long term profits. Then why?
My theory is, Michigan and OSU want long term profits, but not in the way you think(TVs). Did you watch the 60 minutes segment, where alabama tripled its revenue after hiring Nick Saban? What changed? Yes, they won national championships. I think Michigan and OSU want to secure long term profits by winning championships, or at least coming close to it. Now, how it the world does adding MD and RU help M&O win championships? That's the tricky part. I think it's two prong. The first prong's been well documented, the power game where B1G has more influence on the playoff format, which will presumably help Michigan and OSU. The second prong, which people mention a lot but not in the vein of Michigan and OSU specifically is, recruiting. YES, I said it, Delany is doing this to help Michigan and OSU recruit 5 star kids. Far-fetched? Ridiculous? Perhaps. But the midwest from a recruiting perspective is in a dire situation. They can field a competitive team, but admit it, they're short on blue-chip talent. The Northeast has some blue chip talent. Not a lot, but probably enough to satisfy Michigan and OSU, and hopefully enough to vault one of them into a national championship game. And my guess is, Michigan and OSU will not be willing to share that blue chip talent with other B1G teams, unlike they do with the B1G network money.
So here is where the division alignment comes in. In my humble opinion, Michigan and OSU will be paired with the east teams, PSU, MD, and RU. Maybe not immeidately, but probably sooner than later. And those rumors where the B1G will strong arm RU and MD into playing their home games in larger stadiums such as MetLife against M&O, I think they'll turn out to be true. And the B1G will likely have a heavy hand in MD and RU's decision-making, because they'd want to get them to at least a competitive level. You think Delany won't do that? Hey, that's what a B1G membership and the subsequent bailout money buys for you these days.
I disagree about the Delaney working for Mich and OSU though. Penn State also has as many fans as Michigan, and the state of Michigan and Ohio are still small compared to Texas. A Michigan network would not be as profitable as the Longhorn network.
I do like the part about recruiting, and have no doubt it was a BIG part of the expansion. However, would he really put Ohio, Michigan, PSU, UMD and Rutgers in the same division? Thats the 5 most talented states in just one division. Long term thats not going to work.
Also, if he really wanted to recruit well, he would have put Penn State in the same division as Michigan because we recruit Pennsylvania a LOT.
In the end, I think Michigan will get one east coast team in its division.
End game? I think Delaney wants to make the Big Ten the richest, most profitable conference in the nation. That will naturally lead to winning
I wouldn't put it past Delany and Michigan/OSU to put the five states in the same division. It would probably upset a few teams, but I think the Michigan-OSU-Delany trifecta has the power and incentive to do so. Hey, if you split the B1G down the middle all 5 of them go to the east. And I'm not doubting PSU's clout, but within the B1G they're still relatively new and, if my prediction holds true they get to be in the East division too!
I totally agree that making the B1G the richest, most profitable conference in the nation is the end game. But it already is. The question is how does it maintain, and get even more profitable?
about the academic angles, and about other sports. How are Delaney et. al selling this to the Presidents, who after all must approve the moves?
This is just a theory I came up with, and even if this really is Delany's end game, it may eventually turn out to be unfeasible. Plus it's hard to know how these things get sorted out in the B1G because you rarely hear about it. Presumably there's a phone call here and there, and all we see is Delany announcing and the presidents backing him unanimously.
Still, after the UMD and RU annoucement, who is the AD most actively talking to the media? It's our very own Dave Brandon. Makes sense if you think Michigan is the driving force behind this expansion. Supposedly Brandon started this with the (lukewarm? idk) approval of Gene Smith, then PSU wouldn't have a reason to oppose. That's the three biggest voices. If Delany pushes the plan to put Michigan, OSU, PSU with UMD and RU, then that could cause some bad blood with Wisconsin, Nebraska, and Iowa, like we saw in the Big12. Perhaps Delany offers up MSU as a sacrifice, and puts Sparty in the West. (to which Wisc-Neb-Iowa probably responds with a McKayla not-impressed)
I admit I didn't closley examine the academic angle and other sports except the explanations given to us — AAU members, UMD is a good basketball school, etc. But what we do know is, football programs feed the rest of the athletics and the Michigan-OSU football combo is what makes the B1G the most successful conference in the land. That combo doesn't get to trump everything, but at least we know that's probably where the momentum is coming from.
The obvious benefit is the addition of the NY and DC demographics for the B1G Network which may potentially increase the revenue for all of the schools in the conference. However, what David Brandon and the other ADs really received with the addition of RU and MD was a grip on their east cost Alumni and their pocketbooks.
They now have a "product" for potential donors and to develop a fan base of east coast non-alumni, think ND. Brandon can now sell merchandise and create new fans by bringing an annual game day experience to east coast Alumn and their families and friends. More importantly these athletic departments can create large fundraising tours around those games. Think DB dragging Hoke/beilein around to high priced per plate dinners a la presidential politics.
Given the scheduling nightmare this will be i figure DB will make sure there is at least one driving distance football game per year for those in the northeast/mid Atlantic at either PSU/RU/MD. The truth is that a game at MetLife will be a Michigan home game.
So, smart move for the business of college football at the expense of tradition. Just protect the State and Ohio games and I'll adjust to all others. Go Blue and Beat Ohio!
If the end game is just the east coast alumni, then wouldn't it be easier to just schedule one east coast OOC game every year? Extending membership seems like a very steep price to pay for just that.
And Delany is repeatedly being quoted that this expansion is about demographics. Pundits seem to interpret this as TV sets, but it may have to do more with recruiting as I said above. Also there's already talk about moving games to the MetLife and Yankee Stadium and more surprisingly, whether it was a prerequisite for conference entry(it wasn't).
I'd actually like to see MSU or Michigan moved to the other division. They want to be a big boy program, I say let them earn it on their own. Let's see how relevant they are when trying to annoy Michigan is taken out of the equation.
If this came to pass with either Maryland and Rutgers, the South Carolina story would suggest that those fanbases will certainly have to give it some time. During their time as an independent from 1971-1991, the Gamecocks averaged a 6-5 record, and although the cumulative average since their entrance into the SEC is almost no different (6-6), if you break this up, into their period of growing pains in the 1990s, they averaged a 4-8 record, but from 2000 to now, it is 7-5, which is substantially better.
Further, it tells at least a little of the story of how the acclimation to the SEC did eventually make them a competitive team, especially lately. It did take them a while though and those first several years of Gamecock football in the SEC were not pretty. I have a feeling the same might hold for the Terrapins and Scarlet Knights - for some reason, especially the Terrapins. They might suffer a dip initially, but eventually - not sure how long the adjustment would take - they could carve out a niche in the conference, if you will.
You guys have it all wrong. It's not about football; it's about lacrosse.
Kidding aside, it is interesting how this all could play out with other sports, including lacrosse:
(Judging from the photo in the linked story, it's not just in football that Maryland wears god-awful uniforms.)
There is no real logic to which schools are football powerhouses, and which are not. Decades ago, Minnesota had a long run of sustained success. Now they're terrible. There is no logical reason for Kentucky to excel at basketball and suck at football, rather than the other way around. It just IS.
But once you have a powerhouse program, there are enormous structural advantages that allow it to stay that way. That's why schools like Michigan, Alabama, and USC are never down for long, and why Penn State will be a premier program again, eventually.
Building that sort of program is rarely accomplished. Paterno did it at Penn State. Bowden did it at Florida State. Somewhat uniquely, Miami did it not with one great coach, but rather a sequence of them. Still, it takes many years to build up the kind of success where it becomes self-sustaining.
South Carolina is still at around .500 all-time, with a 5-12 record all-time in bowl games. They've never been to a BCS bowl and have finished in the top 10 just once in their history. They've never won an SEC title, and their only division championship, in 2010, came in an unusually weak year, when their conference record was just 5-3. South Carolina still has a LONG way to go.