Grantland Isn't a Fan of B1G Expansion

November 20, 2012 at 11:19a    by Chris Lauderback    
27 Comments

Comments

Maestro's picture

Just based on the title I bristle considering the SEC is already at 14.

vacuuming sucks

Doc's picture

Good read, and some real solid points.  Delaney isn't pulling the wool over anyones eyes.

"Say my name."

William's picture

I actually thought this was very poorly written. It doesn't do anything to water down what is a shitty Big Ten football product, adding Rutgers will probably help. The amount of money the Big Ten could make off of this should offset any bitching about how they weren't "big fish."
P.S.: Not saying that anyone here is bitching, but the author clearly needs some Midol. 

Buckeye Chuck's picture

"...all of this was hammered home by the high-profile oopsy-daisies of standard-bearing Ohio State in BCS bowl games throughout the '00s."
There's no excuse for someone who writes about sports to say something so glaringly stupid about the team that HAS WON MORE BCS BOWLS THAN ANY OTHER SCHOOL.

The most "loud mouth, disrespect" poster on 11W.

Alhan's picture

The excuse is he went to Penn State.
I'd have to copy and paste half of the article to point out all the things wrong with it.

Back in Madison, a cold fish of a game swam upstream toward its death,

I, for one, thought the Ohio State/Wisconsin game was good TV.  You don't have to total 100 points for a football game to be good.

"Nom nom nom" - Brady Hoke

Matt F's picture

"B1G football is painfully boring," (Tunes back to 2011 LSU vs. Alabama in time to see the winning field goal, in a game of five total field goals) "now THIS, is good football!"
I'm not sure when the sports culture becamse so nieve.  Wait, college sports are dominated by money?  NO FRIGGIN WAY.  Get a real job, bro.

MediBuck's picture

He obviously is still voting Geno for Heisman :/

"There is a force that makes us all brothers, no one goes his way alone." --Woody Hayes

yrro's picture

I hate that *so much* about college football. Where winning a mid-tier bowl is somehow better than losing in the championship.

Bucksfan's picture

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like uh...........your opinion, man.

yoderdame's picture

Wow, I use big words, lots of hypens and hard to follow metaphors so it's ok that I come off as a condescending prick.

dr green's picture

Maybe Whinereb should start cheering for the Tide.

Hoody Wayes's picture

...because "Grantland" is an ESPN interest and because ESPN is trying to be all things, to sportsfans.
ESPN is pissy because it didn't out-duel Fox for the BTN.
Now, FOX and the B1G are gonna make ESPN...PAY.

tennbuckeye19's picture

Although I don't agree with all of what the author wrote, he did make some very good points. Our conference is not gonna do OSU any favors nationally. The conference has and will continue to be thought of as weak. And adding Maryland and Rutgers, while it makes business sense, does not make sense from a football competition standpoint. If OSU dominates the conference for the next decade, as the author suggests he believes we will, where does that get us? I could see scenarios in the future with a deserving OSU getting overlooked for a chance to play in the playoff because of the competition in the B1G not being up to the level of other conferences. 

btalbert25's picture

I think that's where the big non conference contracts Gene Smith is going out and getting comes into play.  If we beat up on a couple ranked non conference foes and then beat the 1 or 2 good teams we'll have to play in conference it'll be enough to carry us through.

hodge's picture

What an incredibly short-sighted, cynical opinion.  For Christ's sake: yes--the conference is down; no--Maryland and Rutgers aren't going to contend from day one.  These are the painfully obvious  points.  This guy's calling the Big Ten a "Brontosaurus", though it's the same conference that brought instant replay to the NCAA, created it's own network to the tune of millions in revenue, kicked off the "realignment" extravaganza two years ago, and has generally been at the forefront of the sport's evolution through the past two decades.
This is a knee-jerk, pandering-to-the-lowest-common-denominator, faux-intellectual, look-at-the-big-words-and-metaphors-I'm-using, hack job. If Delaney rounds out the conference with two marquee members, and cultivates the Northeast market, he'll be hailed as a genius.  I'll be waiting with fevered anticipation to see Michael Weinraub's 180, and cackling with glee at his hypocrisy.

tennbuckeye19's picture

You are correct Hodge, he did hit the obvious points, but you are looking at things from the business and innovation side of things. Being at the forefront of that is certainly important, but what about the product on the field? Unfortunately, for all the good that Delany has done for the league and the innovations he's had a hand in bringing to college football, at the end of the day it's about the teams and the games they play. Where is the solution for improving the competition of the league? Where is the solution for why most of the league can't recruit worth a crap? 

thedecline19's picture

I fail to see how Delaney has done anything BUT help these schools recruit.
National exposure is good, and a foray into the Eastern media market is helpful in getting more B1G teams on TV in big markets.  Additionally, with the money lower tier schools like Indiana (football), Minnesota and Maryland get with each new media deal (or expansion of current deals) they can invest more in their program.  Better facilities, better financial means to bring in coaches, etc., all help bring better players into the fold.
Essentially by making the teams more money he's giving them the keys to the bus and saying "here, now you have less of an excuse to suck forever".  Whether or not these programs act upon that is on them.

hodge's picture

I'd say that Ohio State and Michigan got the ball rolling by hiring top-tier talent in the coaching ranks (and there's further evidence of this by looking at Narduzzi's salary at MSU, and Chryst's success at Pitt), and using the BTN-generated revenue to improve facilities in places like Iowa and Indiana.  It's things like that that the SEC (coaches) and Oregon (facilities) used to turn down years around, and improve the overall product on the field.  It's changes like that that can slowly begin to stem the tide of medicrity, and begin a program's ascention.  You've got to change perception in the eyes of recruits, and that's not done overnight.  College football is a cyclical thing; the Big Ten's been down a few years, the SEC was before that--I don't recall hearing their death knell at that time.  As long as OSU, Michigan, Nebraska, and to a lesser extent MSU and Wisconsin can keep the conference afloat as standard bearers (and it's their worst year yet), we'll be fine, especially with the talent that will now be in our footprint in NJ and Maryland.  
Speaking of which, they've only came on as high school powers recently.  Where were they before?  You could see the B1G's move into these areas, and their pending conquest of the NYC market as moves to lock down future recruiting grounds; which should stand to improve as the B1G helps cultivate a football culture there.
I know it's a lot of "ifs", but I really think that this is Delaney's strategy.

SMOLNAR13's picture

"And in case you missed it, all of this was hammered home by the high-profile oopsy-daisies of standard-bearing Ohio State in BCS bowl games throughout the '00s."
Pretty sure we are 5-3 in BCS games since 2000(yes that includes ARK), solidifying our right to be in a BCS game every year we are eligible, no matter what the rest of the B1G does.

Dean's picture

If anything, those maps demonstrate that we're bringing in more per capita talent with New Jersey and Maryland (and let's count DC as part of Maryland -- College Park is much closer to DC than Charlottesville or Blacksburg) than with Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Nevermind the problems of comparing per capita talent, when all we should be interested in is raw number of good recruits.  Maryland and New Jersey have much higher population densities than, say, Alabama, so lower per capita talent may mean as many, or more, talented recruits in the latter two states.  

Poe McKnoe's picture

Penn State grad.  Not saying, I'm just saying...

onetwentyeight's picture

You guys can play the Denial Game but facts are facts numbers are numbers, and as the old Political Science cliche goes: "Demographics is Destiny". 
 
This just confirms my long-standing suspicion that we are the nationally-relevant outlier in the B1G and we can't be burdened with holding up an entire crappy conference full of also-rans and mid majors. We need to be ready to secede from the B1G at any time. THE Flagship university of the state of Ohio (home of the pro football HOF) will always be nationally relevant in football, but we only hurt ourselves football-wise by stubbornly continuing to associate with the likes of Minnesota, Iowa, Northwestern and the like. 
 
 

Sean N's picture

This is one of the worst pieces of "analysis" yet on the subject.  Apparently this piece of crap hipster beardo just didn't want to be the only writer who hadn't yet posted an article dismissive of the BigTen, so he sat down and pooped this out in a couple of minutes.
I find it a little bit silly that just about every one of these negative pieces (have there been any positive ones?) mentions these two ideas without connecting the obvious dots:
1)  Maryland is going to make Big Ten football worse because Maryland has always sucked at football.
and
2) The Big Ten needed to move into this part of the country because the high school talent there is just so much better than in the Midwest.
Could it just be possible that UMD has been underachieving and the Big Ten is getting a program that with, say, an extra $20M or so per year could become very competitive? Of course, the national media isn't looking for any silver linings that might run counter to their agenda - Big Ten: stupid, greedy and bad at football.

bodast67's picture

Why was this^^^^^^^ downvoted...did you even read this opinion?

 

 

 

     " I hope when I die, I die laughing"...                

onetwentyeight's picture

Some of us did and actually agree with all Weinreb says. Sue me.

MediBuck's picture

Two points:
1) Bolstering the midsection of a conference doesn't do it any favors. Despite the media's love affair with the SEC, you never hear the boos thrown on a deplorable Ole Miss, Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas, Missouri, or Kentucky (a full half of the leauge!!) bring down the overall perception of the conference. All pundits do is point to the national championship dominance of Nick Saban, Les Miles, and Urban Meyer. In fact, it pulls up a mediocre Georgia, Florida, SC, and MSt. to top 10 levels! Even Whinereb hippocritically mentions that OSU's high-profile losses hurt the B1G's image (though his central thesis is the opposite--guy clearly needs to stop rage-posting after hitting the Dubra). The Big Ten will not gain respect until their proven commodities (namely OSU, Michigan, Penn State, Nebraska) are playing at a higher level. Adding Rutgers and Maryland (a move I wasn't a fan of) certainly doesn't increase our competitiveness, but it doesn't hurt the Leaders' powers that be. I can guarantee that if the big four teams in our league were tearing up the national championship circuit, the whole B1G would be pulled up. As such, all else considered equal, increasing $$ is a plus.
 
Which leads me to my next point:
 
2) More $$ means better coaches, better facilities, and better teams. Case in point: Pac-12. Though I personally believe the league has been underrated for much of the past decade, the recent cash infusion from Larry Scott's media deals have transformed the conference. New stadiums and practice facilities (Cal Memorial, Arizona renovations/expansion, ASU dome, Washingon renovations), high profile coaching hires (Jim Mora, Rich Rodriguez, Mike Leach, Todd Graham) and increased media exposure have all played a part in moving middling teams up the national perception ladder. Teams like Arizona, UCLA, and Stanford never moved the needle much in sports recognition, but they sure do now.
 
It's a pity that scUM, PSU, Nebraska haven't been able to bolster the league's success in recent years, and the facepalming of Sparty, Iowa, and the Vadgers certainly hasn't helped. I attribute a lot of this to the fact that there has been tremendous coaching turnover (Beckman, Wilson, Hoke, Kill, Meyer, O'Brien) and off-field extracurricular activities (OSU issues, PSU scandal) that haven't allowed the full impact of the financial windfall to set in yet. That said, give the conference time and cash, and it will make strides. The rest of the world can continue to hate, but I see a future where the B1G's domination of CFB is but an inevitability.

"There is a force that makes us all brothers, no one goes his way alone." --Woody Hayes