Should the Big Ten Have Buyer's Remorse Over Adding Maryland and Rutgers?

[n64ra 1,082]

Short answer: Yes

There are no take-backs when it comes to conference expansion.

You sure about that? Why can't the remaining 12 vote them out?

Long answer: https://www.si.com/college-football/2018/11/05/big-ten-expansion-rutgers-maryland-jim-delany

[Parliament 14,260]

Without reading that, I'll say, "unequivocally YES."  Adding them was all about getting headcount for the Big 10 Network.  A very short-termed benefit, as it'll all be a la cart in a few years.

[utee94 15,823]

I guess?

Like Parliament said, the only reason they were added was to drive subscriber model numbers for the BTN over the cable/satellite carriers.  But that's the thing-- everyone knew that from the beginning.  They weren't added to increase the conference's competitive capabilities-- everyone knew all along that adding those two schools could only dilute the conference's athletic strength.  And yet they were added anyway.  They served their purpose, the BTN drove increased subscriber numbers and payouts to member schools increased correspondingly.

Are the B1G fans that lament the addition of those two schools willing to see their own universities send back those BTN payouts?  I'm guessing... no?

 

[Capn81 372]

I think that Maryland was a solid choice to a degree. Gave them another eastern school, solid basketball team and middle of the road football team. Rutgers was 100% about NYC. Overall, Maryland was not a mistake, but Rutgers was a terrible add.

[PilotsError 2,287]

Content aside, fuck SI for what they've done to the look and usefulness of the site.  Reading that was painful and annoying and the popups took about 30 seconds to get rid of.  The article box was reduced to about a quarter of the screen.  Fuck all those people.

Good article though.

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

The last round of conference realignment did nothing to make the game better.  I'm thinking the only schools that truly prefer where they are the ones that either moved up to P5 status, got out of the Big East, and Aggy.

[kopp0e 1,135]

In my view, if the B1G just had to add new members, even for the BTN, why not have added both Kansas & Mizzou, along with Nebraska when the chance of 2010 was there..?
Unless the B1G was really that worried of the XII collapsing, and the XII (6 schools) joined with the PAC at the time was seen as "a point of no return", as UT/OU not available...

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

The BIg Ten and the ACC were both diminished by Maryland's move.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

Just now, kopp0e said:

In my view, if the B1G just had to add new members, even for the BTN, why not have added both Kansas & Mizzou

TV sets. Maryland + NJ + bleedover states >>>>> Kansas & Missouri and bleedover states (if any)

[6th Street 6,400]

Nominal value add to the Big 10 that isolated the West division into Wisconsin and a bunch of scrubs like Illinois, NW, Purdue, and Minn. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by 6th Street

[Surly Bevo 24,908]

MD beats Texas. Those chumps also added Nebraska

[utee94 15,823]

Maryland owning Texas aside, their addition to the B1G has done nothing but dilute the quality of football and, honestly, that's all that really matters in the context of this discussion.  Basketball is nice-to-have but the B1G was already a good basketball conference, and football is what has driven all of the major-conference realignment since at least 1991.

And Rutgers has also quite obviously diluted the strength of the conference.

But these moves were made solely to drive subscriber numbers, and consequently revenue, which they did quite successfully.  Parliament mentioned it as a "short-term" decision but its positive revenue effects should last at least a decade.  That's not too bad I'd say.  

Do some of the fans have buyers' remorse?  Sure. Probably a lot of them, especially the older traditionalists. 

Do the various school ADs have buyer's remorse?  Maybe a couple. 

Does the B1G conference head office have buyer's remorse?  No way.  They knew exactly what adding those two schools would do to decrease the athletic strength of their conference, and they took the money anyway.

[rickyspub 801]

Meh. They have made a lot of money with the adds. There are now two more potential wins to add to the win totals of whichever Big 10 programs are at the top of the heap. The bottom of the Big 10 is so crappy, even having only 3 OOC games isn't a huge problem in protecting the records of their top teams.

Their huge alumni base$ ensure that SOS will never be used by the playoff committee to judge a Big 10 team, so the diluted quality of football just makes playoff access even easier. Everyone says Penn State is now a nationally relevant program, but at this point in Year 5, James Franklin has won the same number of regular season games over ranked teams as Charlie Strong did at Texas in 3 years (5 games). He has also in Year 5 faced the same number of ranked teams in the regular season as Strong did in 3 years at Texas (15 games). No one ever says anything about the shitty SOS of a Big 10 team.

[Wally Fairway 5,549]

39 minutes ago, kopp0e said:

In my view, if the B1G just had to add new members, even for the BTN, why not have added both Kansas & Mizzou, along with Nebraska when the chance of 2010 was there..?
Unless the B1G was really that worried of the XII collapsing, and the XII (6 schools) joined with the PAC at the time was seen as "a point of no return", as UT/OU not available...

do you even own a TV?

Why would any conference (or more accurately, and conference network) want to add Mizzou and KU?

If this thread is about shedding teams from the B1G, then add Nebraska to that conversation

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

2 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Meh. They have made a lot of money with the adds. There are now two more potential wins to add to the win totals of whichever Big 10 programs are at the top of the heap. The bottom of the Big 10 is so crappy, even having only 3 OOC games isn't a huge problem in protecting the records of their top teams.

Their huge alumni base$ ensure that SOS will never be used by the playoff committee to judge a Big 10 team, so the diluted quality of football just makes playoff access even easier. Everyone says Penn State is now a nationally relevant program, but at this point in Year 5, James Franklin has won the same number of regular season games over ranked teams as Charlie Strong did at Texas in 3 years (5 games). He has also in Year 5 faced the same number of ranked teams in the regular season as Strong did in 3 years at Texas (15 games). No one ever says anything about the shitty SOS of a Big 10 team.

If they aren't a Big 10 blue blood they do.

 

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1,084]

8 minutes ago, utee94 said:

And Rutgers has also quite obviously diluted the strength of the conference.

 

The crazy thing is Rutgers isn't even good at Women's BB any more.  After finishing as the national runner up in 2007 (Remember the Don Imus incident?) RU looked like a good addition to B1G women's hoops.  Instead, they've gone 30-38 in conference play with one NCAA appearance since joining the league, and that's in their good sport. Men's hoops has finished last every year.  Men's soccer has made their NCAA tournament once since joining the league, and has finished last in the league each of the last two years.

Bonus fun fact:  Rutgers' sole NCAA national championship is fencing from 1949.  Makes aggy look good by comparison.

[UTEX_ME 4,762]

9 minutes ago, J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. said:

The crazy thing is Rutgers isn't even good at Women's BB any more.  After finishing as the national runner up in 2007 (Remember the Don Imus incident?) RU looked like a good addition to B1G women's hoops.  Instead, they've gone 30-38 in conference play with one NCAA appearance since joining the league, and that's in their good sport. Men's hoops has finished last every year.  Men's soccer has made their NCAA tournament once since joining the league, and has finished last in the league each of the last two years.

Bonus fun fact:  Rutgers' sole NCAA national championship is fencing from 1949.  Makes aggy look good by comparison.

can't fence sheep. 

[rickyspub 801]

4 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

If they aren't a Big 10 blue blood they do.

 

Not going to watch a talking head...Iowa didn't get to the finish line, so we'll never know if they would have jumped into the playoffs. Their problems stem more from their starting point than their schedule. If OSU, Michigan, or Penn State played their schedule, even the talking heads wouldn't suggest they don't belong due to SOS. In fact, Wisconsin would probably be in the top 4 if they were undefeated and their schedule hasn't been that much harder than Iowa's up to this point. (OK, Michigan has proven itself a much better team than PSU, but both teams would have gone into the CCG having faced only two teams that were ranked at the time they played.)

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

1 minute ago, rickyspub said:

Not going to watch a talking head...Iowa didn't get to the finish line, so we'll never know if they would have jumped into the playoffs. Their problems stem more from their starting point than their schedule. If OSU, Michigan, or Penn State played their schedule, even the talking heads wouldn't suggest they don't belong due to SOS. In fact, Wisconsin would probably be in the top 4 if they were undefeated and their schedule hasn't been that much harder than Iowa's up to this point. (OK, Michigan has proven itself a much better team than PSU, but both teams would have gone into the CCG having faced only two teams that were ranked at the time they played.)

My point is just that Iowa got (deservedly) raked over the coals for their terrible SOS in 2015.  They had to be undefeated to get in.

[closetojumping 62,721]

Stewart Mandel's article in The Athletic last week was fantastic on this subject. I don't have the link, but it should be easy to find. I can't imagine the SI article being better, so yeah, didn't click. 

The subject of whether or not the Big10 is better off by adding Rutgers and Maryland will likely be debated well into the future. My view is that, early financial gains aside, these two moves were bad, short-sighted decisions that add to the weight being put on one of the premier brands in all of American sports. The run of Penn State, Michigan State, and Ohio State, on their own as major issues has brought harm to the conference's identity. This is an org that literally includes the word "integrity" in its mission and has run campaigns around the concept. Add to that the massive Maryland scandal and all of the other minor scandals from Minnesota to Rutgers, and you've got a recipe for significantly denting the brand. They do not want to be equated with the SEC. They're supposed to be the superior version of what the Pac 12 represents. They're missing on that, and the on-field/-on-court product has also been diluted in the process. 

In short, they're a conference that suddenly needs to hit some fucking singles and begin to turn the ship back towards the direction of positive public sentiment. Folks may not think the off-the-field shit matters long term, or that continued on-field dilution won't matter, largely because of the prestige of the academics and the brands of Michigan and Ohio State. Those folks don't understand the life of a brand/brands and how subtle disruption for a brand can be in the early days of a down cycle. This is a potential multi-century brand that has now induced damned near a decade of badwill by its down devices. 

[Machinator 32,099]

4 minutes ago, closetojumping said:

Stewart Mandel's article in The Athletic last week was fantastic on this subject

I believe this is the one you were referring to.

https://theathletic.com/623708/2018/10/30/mandel-marylands-main-big-ten-contribution-has-been-embarrassing-leadership/

[rickyspub 801]

3 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

My point is just that Iowa got (deservedly) raked over the coals for their terrible SOS in 2015.  They had to be undefeated to get in.

Yeah, but that is more because they didn't even hit the polls until Week 6. If OSU or Michigan State, both of whom started the season in the Top 10, played Iowa's schedule they would have been in the playoff discussion throughout the season and would have survived a loss and still made the playoffs because of where they started. 

[Al_4_ISU 12,463]

2 minutes ago, rickyspub said:

Yeah, but that is more because they didn't even hit the polls until Week 6. If OSU or Michigan State, both of whom started the season in the Top 10, played Iowa's schedule they would have been in the playoff discussion throughout the season and would have survived a loss and still made the playoffs because of where they started. 

I'd argue they'd be there because of their blue blood status.

I guess where I'm going with this is that conference is affiliation matters less than blue blood status.  Ohio State and Michigan get a pass because they're blue bloods.  Not because they're in the Big 10.

[rickyspub 801]

Just now, Al_4_ISU said:

I'd argue they'd be there because of their blue blood status.

I guess where I'm going with this is that conference is affiliation matters less than blue blood status.  Ohio State and Michigan get a pass because they're blue bloods.  Not because they're in the Big 10.

In 2015, it was Michigan State that started the season in the Top 10, not Michigan. Michigan State is even lower on the blue blood pecking order than Iowa.

[Ghost of Shag 2,608]

I mean, I can't believe you started a thread about Maryland and nobody told you to go screw yourself.  

So go screw yourself.  

[J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. 1,084]

25 minutes ago, UTEX_ME said:

can't fence sheep. 

aggy:

"Wut? Sure you can.  Lookie Here, ain't he got a purty mouth?"

 

 

[HtownHorn 14,681]

1 hour ago, kopp0e said:

In my view, if the B1G just had to add new members, even for the BTN, why not have added both Kansas & Mizzou, along with Nebraska when the chance of 2010 was there..?
Unless the B1G was really that worried of the XII collapsing, and the XII (6 schools) joined with the PAC at the time was seen as "a point of no return", as UT/OU not available...

For the same reason the Big 8 needed to merge with the SWC. There are very few TV markets in that footprint that would drive a conference network.

The real problem is that 14 is way too many teams for a football conference. Really 10 is the best, though 12 isn't bad either.

Edited November 6, 2018 by HtownHorn

[phdhorn 6,224]

Maryland alum - Yow ran Maryland's athletic budget into the shitter so they went to the Big Ten to grab some quick cash.

Stupid ass move.  As a football team, Maryland is not awful, kind of like a Purdue or Northwestern. The quality of football is not bad, if not one of the big boys.

Maryland is a  borderline top 50 institution academically. So in that way it every bit equals the Big Ten. However, the athletic department and the sports management is a fucking abomination.

Edited November 6, 2018 by phdhorn

[TXSooner518 2,438]

1 hour ago, PilotsError said:

Content aside, fuck SI for what they've done to the look and usefulness of the site.  Reading that was painful and annoying and the popups took about 30 seconds to get rid of.  The article box was reduced to about a quarter of the screen.  Fuck all those people.

Good article though.

Complete co-sign on that website. Two videos both auto-play, random popups, fuck that.

And the content was mixed quality.  Some fine, but the paragraph about the Rutgers walkon LB who had mental issues, that is literally completely unrelated, and could happen at every single school in the country. Just pointless filler. 

[Whitman 694]

4 minutes ago, phdhorn said:

Maryland alum - Yow ran Maryland's athletic budget into the shitter so they went to the Big Ten to grab some quick cash.

Stupid ass move.  As a football team, Maryland is not awful, kind of like a Purdue or Northwestern. The quality of football is not bad, if not one of the big boys.

Maryland is a  borderline top 50 institution academically. So in that way it every bit equals the Big Ten. However, the athletic department and the sports management is a fucking abomination.

Except for that killing the kid thing......

PS:  I liked going to Byrd Stadium when we played UMD every year.

PPS: It will always be Byrd Stadium to me, not Capital Whatever Stadium.

[Doc Sam Beckett 5,793]

2 hours ago, Capn81 said:

I think that Maryland was a solid choice to a degree. Gave them another eastern school, solid basketball team and middle of the road football team.

Middle of the road football team? 

[clapclapclap 9,000]

In the middle of the road you see the darnedest things
Like fat guys driving 'round in jeeps through the city
Wearing big diamond rings and silk suits
Past corrugated tin shacks full up with kids
Oh man I don't mean a Hampstead nursery
When you own a big chunk of the bloody third world
The babies just come with the scenery

[Spankytoes 1,739]

2 hours ago, Capn81 said:

I think that Maryland was a solid choice to a degree. Gave them another eastern school, solid basketball team and middle of the road football team. Rutgers was 100% about NYC. Overall, Maryland was not a mistake, but Rutgers was a terrible add.

In my 5 years of living in Manhattan, Jersey City and Long Island, I can't remember a single time that I saw someone wearing a Rutgers shirt much less a sports bar playing their game. In fact, if college football were to go head-to-head with college basketball for a time slot, you'd be hard pressed to see any grass on the TV. CFB fans lurk in the shadows in the city for some reason. Outside of bars setup for alumni watching parties, it's just not a thing up here. If Rutgers were challenging for a National Championship, you'd see a 1% difference from what it is right now. No one gives two shits about Rutgers in any capacity, even as a t-shirt fan.

[BabaYaga 15,298]

Let's assume that expansion was something they "had" to do.  What should they have done?  Didn't Mizzuo start this shit-show of frenetic conference realignment by bailing on the B12, spreading their legs for the B10, getting shot down, and then landing in the SEC (to give them the STE markets & compliment the Ags?). 

Or was CU the catalyst by moving West to the PAC?  I always thought KU made more sense.  

 

 

[rickyspub 801]

14 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

In my 5 years of living in Manhattan, Jersey City and Long Island, I can't remember a single time that I saw someone wearing a Rutgers shirt much less a sports bar playing their game. In fact, if college football were to go head-to-head with college basketball for a time slot, you'd be hard pressed to see any grass on the TV. CFB fans lurk in the shadows in the city for some reason. Outside of bars setup for alumni watching parties, it's just not a thing up here. If Rutgers were challenging for a National Championship, you'd see a 1% difference from what it is right now. No one gives two shits about Rutgers in any capacity, even as a t-shirt fan.

It was the excuse to make every cable subscriber in the NYC metro subsidize the B10 Network. The Big 10 has a ton of alums in the metro, but you need to have a local team to drive the getaway car from the theft.

[notre dame joe 187]

2 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Nominal value add to the Big 10 that isolated the West division into Wisconsin and a bunch of scrubs like Illinois, NW, Purdue, and Minn. 

Like them or not, the original Bore Champion had to play through a round robin and beat about 8 schools that took their football teams seriously.  Now the East team just has to get the breaks in 3 key games. 

Edited November 6, 2018 by notre dame joe

[Chad 1,728]

Cincinnati would've been a better addition than the Rutgers and would've fit in perfectly geographically. Cincy has good football and basketball programs.

[Dutch 4,465]

Except tOSU was (and is) never going to allow another in-state school in the B1G.  The only other states with multiple B1G members joined long ago: Michigan St in 1950 and Indiana in 1899 (Michigan and Purdue are founding members).

Edited November 6, 2018 by Dutch

[Capn81 372]

It was the excuse to make every cable subscriber in the NYC metro subsidize the B10 Network. The Big 10 has a ton of alums in the metro, but you need to have a local team to drive the getaway car from the theft.

This. (Not sure why it had to be explained)

[Leeroy Jenkins 2,404]

I would argue that Penn St, Ohio St, and Michigan St should have embarrassed the Big10 much more so than Rutgers.  

[ButtFumble 5,179]

lets be honest the Big 10 is set up to serve tOSU, Michigan, Pedd State and to a lesser extent MSU and UW in football

people talk shit about Texas and the Big 12 and how everything happens for the benefit of Texas, but the other members in the Big 10 are willing to take it in the ass and ask for another as long as tOSU, Michigan and Pedd State are happy in football

no one gives a flying fuck that Nebraska is in the shit half of the conference and Iowa does not give a fuck that they have to massively over pay a corch just to win their half of the conference occasionally and to be ranked somewhere sometimes at the end of some seasons occasionally after being way overrated for part of more seasons

and tOSU, Pedd State and Michigan do not give a shit about playing teams from the other half of the conference for the Bucket of Mud Trophy or the Box or Thumbtacks Trophy or the Big Hatchet Award Vs playing Rutgers or Maryland and getting some wins

Indiana gives a shit about basketball so they get some leeway there and everyone else can fuck off and clean up the puke and scrub the toilets after the Big 10 frat party

as long as tOSU, Pedd State, Michigan and to some degree MSU all play each other every year on football they would add ECU or Kent if they thought they could get more money and probably move Wisconsin back to The Leaders (or is it The Legends 🤡 )as long as UW was OK with that and they would probably decline that so they can at least keep winning The Legends (or is it The Leaders 🤖 ) the years that Iowa does not or that one of the other just glad to be theres does not

 

[mulletpelini 5,211]

13 hours ago, Wally Fairway said:

If this thread is about shedding teams from the B1G, then add Nebraska to that conversation

Would be easier for Sparty to hit .500 more

[phdhorn 6,224]

18 hours ago, Whitman said:

Except for that killing the kid thing......

PS:  I liked going to Byrd Stadium when we played UMD every year.

PPS: It will always be Byrd Stadium to me, not Capital Whatever Stadium.

Well technically yes, but on the field, Maryland is an ok team (really OK before they fired Friedgen), they actually had a pretty good 20 year run, with 10 bowls in the last 20 years (Fridge alone went to bowls 7 of his 9 years).  On the field they're usually competitive, or at least as much as the B1G non-Big 4 are.  Basically Debbie Yow ruined everything and now they're playing catchup.  And their recruiting was approaching Top 20 levels - before McNair's death.  Will they sink into total shittiness at least a few years?  Possibly.

PS:  Yes, it's a nice if not raucous place to watch a game.  They took Byrd's name off in 2015 for political reasons <sigh>.

PPS:  They got a deal like of like Texas... which as Frank Denius field at DKR stadium.  Maryland has CapitalOne field at... for now anyway again... Maryland Stadium.  I'm sure they'll sell rights to 777-7777 Get Out of Jail Stadium or something eventually.

Edited November 7, 2018 by phdhorn

[Wally Fairway 5,549]

5 hours ago, mulletpelini said:

Would be easier for Sparty to hit .500 more

Yeah - you are right, since Nebraska joined the B1G MSU has only played .715 ball (.734 in conference).
So clearly Nebraska is a terror .... by the way the Cornshuckers are striking fear into the B1G this year .... oh no MSU has to play there soon
I will give Nebraska some credit, as they have played in the B1G title game once .... remind me how that went   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Hurtlocker 2,212]

On the eyeballs front:

W1:  Texas @ Maryland, FSI = 1.274m

W6:  Maryland @ Michigan, ABC = 2.33m

W8: Maryland @ Iowa, ESPN2 = 701k

W10: Michigan State @ Maryland, ESPN2 = 762k

That's all the rated games between them.

Rutgers had Texas State, Buffalo, Indiana, Illinois, Maryland, Northwestern and Wisconsin on BTN so far, with Kansas on FSN, because it was in Lawrence.   Their game against Michigan this week is on, you guessed it, BTN.  

Outside the rated games, Maryland had Bowling Green on ESPN+, Temple, Rutgers, Minnesota, and Illinois on BTN.  Their upcoming game against Indiana is also on BTN.

That's why these two smears were added.  Filler on the east coast cable systems.

[mulletpelini 5,211]

1 hour ago, Wally Fairway said:

Yeah - you are right, since Nebraska joined the B1G MSU has only played .715 ball (.734 in conference).
So clearly Nebraska is a terror .... by the way the Cornshuckers are striking fear into the B1G this year .... oh no MSU has to play there soon
I will give Nebraska some credit, as they have played in the B1G title game once .... remind me how that went   ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

8-2

[jinx 2,635]

It let them copy the SEC model of not playing everyone and being able to pad your schedule, so you end up with more teams with good records.  Based on that alone, I think it was a good decision.  

The biggest problem that the Big 12 has is that we all play each other and the losses start stacking up.  Then it is easy for the Eye Test Judges to frown upon our conference when they come out with rankings.  If Texas (or OU or WVU, etc.) was able to avoid half of the Big 12, like Bama gets to avoid half of the SEC, it would be easier to stack up wins and the championship game would actually mean something.  

I personally like the 10 team league, but if other conferences are going to play 8 conference games, 3 cupcakes and one OOC P5, I think everyone should adopt that model.  I guess they would still penalize the other conferences for not being the SEC, but at least the win / loss record would compare.

[SwanderedTalent 5,761]

18 hours ago, Dutch said:

Except tOSU was (and is) never going to allow another in-state school in the B1G.  The only other states with multiple B1G members joined long ago: Michigan St in 1950 and Indiana in 1899 (Michigan and Purdue are founding members).

there isn't another Big Ten caliber program/school in the state of Ohio, this is like saying Michigan and Michigan State, or Minnesota, will never allow another school from their state into the Big Ten

[Wally Fairway 5,549]

53 minutes ago, mulletpelini said:

8-2

Congrats (I had to look it up) - I'm happy with MSU's results since Nebraska became a B1G member. Are you happy with the Huskers results?

Asking because this is a B1G thread - so I'll give you 3-2 (but you should continue to bask in the glory of those Big 12 and Big 8 days. Maybe you can start a thread with Michigan fans and talk about 1997 and how great that was.

[Go Pokes 979]

21 hours ago, J.R. Juniors Junior Jr. said:

The crazy thing is Rutgers isn't even good at Women's BB any more.  After finishing as the national runner up in 2007 (Remember the Don Imus incident?) RU looked like a good addition to B1G women's hoops.  Instead, they've gone 30-38 in conference play with one NCAA appearance since joining the league, and that's in their good sport. Men's hoops has finished last every year.  Men's soccer has made their NCAA tournament once since joining the league, and has finished last in the league each of the last two years.

Bonus fun fact:  Rutgers' sole NCAA national championship is fencing from 1949.  Makes aggy look good by comparison.

Rutgers went to the Final Four in basketball in 1976.  aggy is one of 3 schools to not finish in the top 4 in baseball, basketball, or football since WWII.   Nothing makes aggy look good.