polometer

November 18th, 2012 at 4:34 PM ^

Georgia Tech is much better for academics.  Both schools (Maryland and Georgia Tech) receive very similar rankings from most college rating systems.(Like USNWR)  Both are AAU acredited schools, but Georgia Tech just received this rating two years ago.  Maryland has been an AAU school since the 60's (link). Both are large research institutions and very comparable, but there are plenty of things were one school out preforms the other academically.

As far as basketball goes Maryland has been a very good school for the past 10-20 years at least.  They have a national championship to their name from 2002.  I think many would argue that they have been the better program over the past decade or so.

Although I will sede that Georgia is a good TV market, I also think it is incredibly dominated by the SEC when it comes to college football.  The College Park park area is ripe for a new college football TV market.  The only succesful nearby teams are PSU and Virginia Tech; both many hours away.  Plus there is not one consistantly decent football program in Maryland.  This could begin to bring and entire sports crazy state (Ravens, Orioles, local lacrosse all have phenominal following) into the fold of the Big Ten.

Mmmm Hmmm

November 18th, 2012 at 4:24 PM ^

Head asplode at the thought of defending the option nearly every year...

But I agree about academics, football, and expanding the footprint into the southeast region.

That said, as somebody who participated in a decidedly non-revenue varsity sport in college, it is going to create a travel nightmare and I would guess a strain on some of the ADs across the B1G.

Southern Blue

November 18th, 2012 at 3:32 PM ^

As a new GaTech grad student certainly would be cool to see big ten teams down here. I bet Michigan fans could overwelm Tech's small little stadium.  Tech would bring in more of a market in Atlanta than Rutgers would in new york or Maryland in DC. Still not good though.  Tech will always lag way behind UGA in terms of marketshare.

Needs

November 18th, 2012 at 4:24 PM ^

It's not so much TV ratings as TV sets the Big Ten seems to care about. If Ga Tech gets the Big Ten Network on basic cable in Atlanta, that's a lot of money (as is DC for Maryland or NYC for Rutgers ... though I'm sceptical that the Rutgers fanbase is going to be able to force Jim Dolan's hand),

 

Yeoman

November 18th, 2012 at 3:38 PM ^

I'm not sure I understand the disrespect for Maryland's academics. By measures like board scores they'd be in the upper half of the B1G (only Michigan and Northwestern are clearly better) and, no doubt in part thanks to their proximity to DC, they're rolling in research money.

Of course I'd have no complaint about Georgia Tech on that score either. Both would be good adds academically IMO.

 

Monocle Smile

November 18th, 2012 at 3:43 PM ^

I'm not getting this vibe at all. Because Maryland and Rutgers are being referred to as a package deal and Rutgers is a steaming shitpile, they get lumped in together.

Maryland is a great school. The problems are that they're decent at basketball, but suck balls at the other major sports and don't do anything for the market. The east coast, especially DC and New York, are already full of Big Ten and SEC alumni and even those who aren't don't give a shit about Maryland or Rutgers sports.

Yeoman

November 18th, 2012 at 3:52 PM ^

Posted that in the wrong place--it was supposed to be a reply to the post that said Georgia Tech would be a "MUCH better add than either of the other schools fof...especially academics."

There have been a lot of posts since this story broke suggesting that Maryland added nothing academically. I'm glad some people know better--lumping Maryland with Rutgers as an academic institution is an insult.

Belisarius

November 18th, 2012 at 3:51 PM ^

If this is about academics, then Maryland and GT are fine grabs. But then why don't we get Boston College too? GREAT academics, and big market (Namely: Boston).
Now, I don't believe that's a good idea, and probably none of you do either. And any argument you can make agaionst Boston College, you can pretty much make against Maryland, and even Georgia Tech.
 

neoavatara

November 18th, 2012 at 3:37 PM ^

If we are definitely going to expand, geography matters less than improving the conference both athletically and academically.  Ga Tech would do that far more than Maryland or Rutgers.  I would add Rutgers to get the NYC and Philly markets, but don't see the upside to Maryland at all. 

xcrunner1617

November 18th, 2012 at 3:39 PM ^

Ugh.  I already hate how Micigan can go 3 years without playing a team in the conference.  The addition of 2 more teams will just make that even worse.  Hard to consider a team in your conference when you only play twice a decade.  I feel like we play schools such Western and Eastern at least that often...

club2230

November 18th, 2012 at 3:40 PM ^

This is a fan site.  All the talk about expansion here eventually leads to a comment about where our television market will expand to.  Let's make that irrelevant for the sake of being fans for a moment and talk about who actually we want to be in the Big Ten.

Personally GT sounds great to me.  They are a bit far away, but apparently that isn't an issue anymore.  Maryland and Rutgers do absolutely nothing for me.  There is no record of sustained success in their football programs in recent history.  It would be purely for TV which, as a fan, I will refuse to say is a good reason.

eamus_caeruli (not verified)

November 18th, 2012 at 3:53 PM ^

I agree, the tv market share is a non sequitur point of view. However kind sir, you are only using academics as your point of adding these three schools. They are find academic institutions, but athletically --to use a corporate term -- they are non-value added. They bring little to nothing of relevance and prestige. No ties to any school in the BiG sans Rutgers and PSU's FWB situation.

Nebraska is/was a football powerhouse, and decent academically. If we can't find someone or others damn similar, it's just a joke to change, and in my humble opinion hurts our brand rather than adding to it.

jethro34

November 18th, 2012 at 3:42 PM ^

So I guess geography means absolutely nothing for conferences anymore.  Sure, Boise State to the Big East probably sent that message loud and clear, but having teams in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, and Georgia all a part of the same conference seems ridiculous.

If Maryland and Rutgers end up in, and Georgia Tech comes as well, Virginia Tech makes the most sense for a move to 16.

No single school in that conversation is a fantastic addition for any one reason, but I suppose that does add depth and markets to make the B1G the strongest conference in many ways.

The fallout in terms of other conferences realigning to match scares me, though, because there are bigger fish and we will see conferences disappear.

cheesheadwolverine

November 18th, 2012 at 3:42 PM ^

Have we covered that ND just spurned the B1G to join a conference that appears to be bailing en masse to join the B1G?  Anyway GaTech>Rutgers.  Pretty even with Maryland as far as I am concerned with athletics and academics.  Living in DC, I know that Maryland football doesn't bring this market, and I'm pretty sure Rutgers doesn't bring the NYC market, but do any of us know that GaTech brings Atlanta?

raleighwood

November 18th, 2012 at 4:08 PM ^

I'm not sure what "market" really means.  I think that a lot of people focus on the how rabid the fans are in the area.  However, in BTN terms, they're probably thinking about how many TV sets in are in the geographic area.  This might allow BTN to become part of the "standard" package in the Atlanta area (and possibly all of Georgia).  That's probably 5-8M new subscribers who are paying $0.50 - $1.00 in fees to BTN each month (depending on how it gets bundled.  That's a lot of potential revenue for BTN.

My point is that it's not so important that the team is widely regarded in the area, it's about how many TV sets that will be picking up BTN.  That's the entire driving force behind Rutgers.

Monocle Smile

November 18th, 2012 at 4:12 PM ^

IIRC, BTN is already available on basically the entire the East Coast...or at least New York metro and large surrounding area.

But if I'm wrong and this is the driving force behind Rutgers, then the people pushing for it can screw themselves. The boundless greed of media moguls makes me sick.

Needs

November 18th, 2012 at 4:30 PM ^

It's availablein NYC but not on the basic digital tier, which means only Big Ten fans willing to shell out extra get it (or switch to FIOS). The idea behind any of these schools is to be able to extract revenue from people who couldn't care less about the channel, in the manner of all the barely watched channels that come on basic cable.

jcorqian

November 18th, 2012 at 4:35 PM ^

I wouldn't say it's commonly available.  Here in NYC I believe only Time Warner and a few other providers carry it.  I have RCN and I can't get Big Ten Network, so have to stream or watch games at other peoples' places.

If they added some more East Coast schools, I'm assuming the other cable carriers will pick up BTN as well.

Belisarius

November 18th, 2012 at 4:18 PM ^

The counter to that is that you NEED a demand to make the BTN a standard part of the package. Otherwise, people aren't going to sit back and pony up for a station covering a team no one cares about.
It all comes back to the Big East argument: they like to brag about the big media markets they cover, which includes really a lot of major cities. But they can't get a good tv deal because those big cities don't care about the schools and their sports.
I know it's deifferent, as we have the glorious BTN, but again, there has to be demand to make the channel a part of automatic packages, and for any of these schools, that just doesn't exist.