Maryland to big ten official

Submitted by ak47 on November 19th, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Don't have a non-insider link but according to sources in MD the UMD board of regents voted today to join the big ten.  On the bright side of all of this maybe they will rename the divisions, so that might be something.  Here is the link if you are interested http://maryland.247sports.com/Article/Source-Maryland-to-the-Big-10-102…

Update: Brett Mcmurphy reporting vote to join as well and tomvh retweeted it so that counts as official for me.

Also for people hating on MD, besides bringing the baltimore/dc metro market which is the 4th largest in the country, it also brings aau membership, the third most wins in acc basketball behind only unc and duke, elite lacrosse and soccer teams on both the mens and womens side, access to the best basketball recruitng hotbed in the country, a football team that has been to the bcs more than michigan state (I just thought that was funny) and other benefits.  While its football program probably tops out at mediocare so does most of the big ten, and honestly most bcs football schools in general, I'm not happy about the move for personal reason but if the big ten wants to keep expanding there aren't really a lot of better viable options than Maryland.

Comments

turd ferguson

November 19th, 2012 at 10:34 AM ^

Assuming that they go to 14 or 16, I think they'll have to put us in the same division as OSU.  That's too many teams for the protected rivalry thing to work.  Think about it like this:

If you have two divisions of seven teams each, you have six games locked in against other teams in your division.  Now figure that you have a protected cross-divisional rival.  That means that you'll never have more than one game against the other six teams (with an eight-game conference schedule).  In other words, we'd play in Madison or State College once every 12 years.  That can't possibly work.  It'd be a little better with a nine-game conference schedule but not much.

Divisional realignment - specifically, Michigan and OSU getting in the same division - is the one reason I'm kind of okay with this.

Red is Blue

November 19th, 2012 at 10:42 AM ^

Do you have to have divisions to have a conference championship game?  Instead of divisions, what makes more sense to me is taking the #1 and #2 teams from the non-divisionalized (totally made up that word) conference and have them play for the championship.  Even without protected rivalries, with divisions you've got 2 non-divisional, conference games against 7 teams.  So, once every seven years in Madision or State College. 

Leaders And Best

November 19th, 2012 at 10:37 AM ^

Only bright side of this move is a chance to fix the divisional setup. In my perfect world the divisions would be realigned like so:

Central: Michigan, Ohio State, Michigan State, Illinois, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana

Northwest/East: Nebraska, Penn State, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Maryland, Rutgers

- almost every major rivalry game is protected within division (except Little Brown Jug) and creates East Coast partner schools for PSU

- Eliminates need for the protected crossover thus enabling 2 rotating interdivisional games per year (one of the biggest problems with the SEC setup)

Needs

November 19th, 2012 at 10:50 AM ^

I agree this is the only possible upside.

It is time to start bombing Brandon, Delaney, and Gene Smith with this realignment plan. It maintains the sanctity of the league's key rivalries while ensuring reasonable competitive balance. You have to believe the general feeling at the league office is going to be to keep Michigan and OSU divided in the hopes for the return championship game. The fanbases need to voice that maintaining the rivalry as an end of year thing, and as a regular elimination game for the conference title, is more important.

Penn State would complain about the above alignment, because their supposed rivalry with OSU would go out the door, but fuck them, they're going to whine about whatever happens and no one at OSU considers that a rivalry anyway. They can have their "eastern rivals." 

And the league must now go to 9 games.

Plegerize

November 19th, 2012 at 10:51 AM ^

My question to you about your division splits is, do you think the schools in the Northwest/East division would think it's fair that they would literally have to fly almost cross country to their away games while teams in the central division could basically drive to theirs?

I love the split and I think it's perfect, but I wonder if travel costs would prevent something like this. Just wondering your opinion.

Leaders And Best

November 19th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^

But I think it is a sacrifice the NW schools (Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, & Iowa) would make to ensure they played each other every year. PSU already has Wisconsin in their division and has Nebraska as a protected crossover so it's not a huge change, but they do lose the PSU-OSU rivalry.  On the flip side, this may be the only way to get PSU, Rutgers, & Maryland in the same division, and I think long term PSU fans may be happy about that in terms of local rivals.

in terms of travel, is there a huge difference between flying from the East Coast to Chicago, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Madison, or Iowa?

rbgoblue

November 19th, 2012 at 10:53 AM ^

East vs West Allignment seems to make the most sense

East: Maryland, Rutgers, Penn State, Michigan, OSU, Purdue, Indiana

West: Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, Northwestern, MSU

Good competitive balance with penn state down for the near future.  UM vs MSU can have a protected crossover.

Red is Blue

November 19th, 2012 at 10:47 AM ^

Its probably one of the things where on a secret ballot the board vote would not have been unanimous, but the dissenters realized they were outnumbered and for the sake outward appearance they all voted the same way.  Boards often do that to avoid projecting dissension and instead projecting the notion that this is such a great idea that we all agree.

bigmc6000

November 19th, 2012 at 10:30 AM ^

Good Lord this is yet something else we can blame on the SEC - if they hadn't been stupid and expanded to 14 maybe Delaney and Co. wouldn't have come up with the brilliantly idiotic idea of adding 2 sh!tty schools just so we can have 14.

 

It's the same point as was made before - yes they do "add" the NY and DC markets but there's one big problem with that... NO ONE CARES ABOUT RUTGERS OR MARYLAND FOOTBALL!  Guh

 

I'll go prepare for this to be made official, I actually thought the addition of Nebraska was good - they really do fit our history and our demographic but those eastern schools - yeah, it's just not the same over there...

JohnnyV123

November 19th, 2012 at 10:32 AM ^

The Big Ten started this expansion nonsense don't go blaming the SEC. Everyone else freaked out because of what we did and overreacted and almost created super conferences of 20 teams. Remember the pods?

I hate this move but I'll deal with it.

bigmc6000

November 19th, 2012 at 10:39 AM ^

... we weren't the ones that went totally stupid and went to 14 teams. 14 teams serves no purpose whatsoever.  At least if you go to 16 then you can just pretend like you're two different conferences who meet at the end of the year. At 14 you get massive unbalanced scheduling and don't get the minor incentive of really belonging to something (i.e. The B1G or whatever division you're in).

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see something stupid like what they did in the SEC - despite the fact that both schools are on 1 side of the conference foot print they would put them in different divisions and guarantee a cross over game for them.

M-Wolverine

November 19th, 2012 at 10:56 AM ^

If you want to go back to Penn State, then yes. If you mean adding Nebraska, well there were 3 other conferences with a conference championship game already before the Big Ten, so 3 conferences at 12.  We just wanted to make our $$$'s too. 

If you want to blame someone, blame Texas and Notre Dame.  Texas made it so no one wanted to be with them in a conference, so Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and even A&M left. And Notre Dame because their insistence on being an independant and thumbing their noses at the Big Ten kept them from being the logical 12th member which probably would have left Nebraska where it was, and none of the rest happens. Notre Dame trying to cling to independence while finding a conference that makes them still "national" rather than letting things logically fall regionally is where it all started.

I Like Burgers

November 19th, 2012 at 10:36 AM ^

Dont forget that the Big Ten started all of this by adding Nebraska.  And really, it started when they launched the Big Te Network.  When that turned into a cash cow, conference expansion and the additional subscribes that come with it made a lot of sense.  Financially anyways.  That started this whole thing and prompted the Pac-10 to add Colorado and Utah to add to their soon-to-launch network's footprint, which prompted the SEC to add TAMU and Mizzou to strengthen their own brand.

TL;DR -- it is, and always has been about the money and not the athletics.

I Like Burgers

November 19th, 2012 at 12:32 PM ^

Texas' role in the Big Ten's motives has been minimal.  If anything, Texas adding the LHN was a (over) reaction to the success of the Big Ten Network.  Yes getting to 12 for a conf champ game is different than going to 14.  But the Big Ten went to 12 for the money that comes with a conf champ game, and they are going to 14 because of the money that comes with expanding your BTN footprint.

Like I said, it has been, and always will be about money.  You could trace almost all of the motives for the recent way of expansion to the fallout from the huge success of the Big Ten Network.  That's your culprit.  Not Texas, not Notre Dame, and not the SEC.

the Glove

November 19th, 2012 at 11:53 AM ^

False, Colorado was the first team to leave their conference. This caused Nebraska to leave because they didn't think the big 12 was strong enough to survive. They were almost right, Texas was 36 hours away from leaving the Big 12 and taking all their minions with them to the PAC 10. The only reason Texas stayed was because the big 12 gave them the majority share in profit and permission to create the Longhorn Network. The second wave of realignment was started by Texas A&M because of non equal sharing revenue and Texas pulling in the majority of all profits.

MikeCohodes

November 19th, 2012 at 10:37 AM ^

Obviously this is a money grab, but one thing Maryland and Rutgers do bring to the table are Division 1 lacrosse teams.  This means that now the following schools in the Big 10 have lacrosse (assuming both MD and Rugters join):  Michigan, Ohio State, Penn State, MD, and Rutgers.  We'd just need 1 more team for a Big Ten lacrosse conference.

Unfortunately neither school brings a hockey team however.

WolvinLA2

November 19th, 2012 at 10:56 AM ^

I bet we start a Big Ten lacrosse team with just the five. With a team like Maryland who gets an at-large every year anyway and OSU and PSU who are close, you don't really need an autobid. That way everything is in place when other Big Ten teams add lacrosse.

laxalum

November 19th, 2012 at 11:23 AM ^

The B1G (B14?), eventually B16, won't start sponsoring a sport until there are six teams.  it took PSU to add hockey to make that happen.  Until then Big Ten lacrosse is in a similar situation.  Will be interesting to see if the five conference programs band together now or stay in other auto-bid conferences until a sixth school adds the sport or further expansion gets the number up.  Women's lacrosse will have six now (Northwestern has women's, but not men's), so they will be good to go.

Let's go Sparty.  Get your program going again so we can get this thing started.

As a lacrosse fan, I love this.  It adds one great program and another decent one, both in recruiting and alumni hotbeds.

As a football fan, I hate this.  But I still want us playing Ohio State every year to go to the Rose Bowl and play the Pac 10 winner.  I am determined to remember the good old days as the good old days.

WolvinLA2

November 19th, 2012 at 1:14 PM ^

You might be right, but I'm not sure that'll be the case.  Big Ten waited for 6 in hockey because the 5 that already had it were split over only two conferences, they were 2 of the top conferences in college hockey and those programs were established in their confereces at the time, there were established rivalries, high levels of competition, etc. 

For lacrosse the situation will be very different.  The 5 schools are currently spread across 4 leagues, with the two new-comers likely being without a league once they join the Big Ten officially.  Do you make Rutgers and Maryland play in a temp league (knowing a decent one won't want them on a short term basis) or make them hang out independent without an autobid anyway?  And it's not like OSU and UM have any real connection to the ECAC teams they play (which just got weaker with Loyola bailing). 

Point is, hockey was stable, so it made sense to wait for a sixth.  Lacrosse is not, so they may play with 5 while they wait for a sixth to come.  I don't think the autobid issue will be a problem since the best team out of that group (most certainly Maryland, at least the next few years) will get an at-large anyway, like they did in the ACC. 

Also - the most recent rumors I've heard suggest Minnesota is the next Big Ten team to add lacrosse, and it might happen sooner rather than later.

bluebyyou

November 19th, 2012 at 10:43 AM ^

The DC-Baltimore market is about ten million people.  That is a huge number of people and the demographics are very solid in terms of income.  Maryland is ranked academically ahead of a number of B1G schools.

Don't know about Rutgers but NJ alone has nine million people, plus NYC.  You have just covered about 7 percent of the US population, not including NYC, if the two teams join. That's a lot of people and a very large  revenue stream.

Red is Blue

November 19th, 2012 at 10:56 AM ^

My brother-in-law and family live the the DC-Baltimore area and are already huge B1G fans.  So, this does not bring them into the B1G fold (already there).  Rather than the pool the important consideration is the incremental number of fans added.  I see this coming from two groups: 1) casual fans that would more often tune into the B1G if it was more readily accessible and 2) fans of the existing schools.  A much smaller number than the total market.

lilpenny1316

November 19th, 2012 at 10:49 AM ^

I lived in DC for 11 years after graduation and our alumni association is very strong there.  There are tons of our alumni there and the same is true of the other B1G schools.  The same will be true if/when Rutgers joins and you technically pull in the NYC market.  

My big problem is that DC is an awful college football area.  It's Redskins or die for the natives in the Fall.  On the flip side, it's a pretty good college hoops area.  UMD-Duke was a great rivalry from 2000-on.

MikeCohodes

November 19th, 2012 at 10:31 AM ^

to having this inflicted on my eyes on a more regular basis.

 

On a positive note, hopefully this will lead to both a realignment of divisions and also getting rid of the stupid Leaders/Legends names.