College Sports Forum

College Sports Forum

College sports discussion.

July 1 is coming...

YTOWNBUCKI's picture
June 19, 2014 at 9:26am
13 Comments

This recent article on SI.com discusses why Maryland and Rutgers was a great add for the B1G.  It basically boils down to projected population growth and how that's going to factor in to future talent pipelines revenue.

A few snippets I enjoyed:

First was in relation to Michigan's state of the union

Michigan has been sending emails pleading with fans to renew their season tickets. "It seems like they keep pushing and pushing to see what our breaking point is," Cook says of the conferences's power brokers. "They keep doing things they know people will hate."

Michigan's conference home games this season: Minnesota, Penn State, Indiana and Maryland.  That's gotta sting.

This I found interesting as well:

"The Big Ten brand has not atrophied, but you can argue that other brands, like the SEC, have accelerated past it," said David Carter, executive director of USC's Sports Business Institute. "If you don't do something, you're in trouble." Delany is betting that something is a pair of institutions light on football cachet and heavy on potential.

Full article found here.

EDIT:  Forgot to add this one:

Ohio State fans are tired of having to defend the league after winning 24 straight and still not getting respect," says blogger Luke Zimmerman.

I'd have to agree with this 100%.

 

FROMTHE18's picture

The B1G brand is superior IMO. Look at the business side of things and the power an AD like Gene Smith has. I think in terms of 'popularity' you'll see the SEC, Pac-12 at a higher level maybe, but in terms of business power, its the B1G. 

YTOWNBUCKI's picture

That's precisely the point.  The B1G is more or less sacrificing competitiveness for business power.  Which would you prefer?

I'm not so sure that the brand is superior to the college sports fan.  A vast majority of people associate the SEC as the big dog of football and the ACC still is recognized as the premier basketball conference.

+3 HS
Mortc15's picture

I think it depends on your definition of premier. Most people now consider the Big Ten to be the best, top to bottom, basketball conference over the last 4-5 years. No championships hurts though. 

Buck-I4Life

+1 HS
Chief B1G Dump's picture

That's a very good question.  

As a fan, I prefer competitive/athletic superiority over business power.  I do not care about the revenue/profit of the B1G but I do care about the on the field/court product.  The B1G has largely been embarrassing on the field for the last 7 years or so.  Obviously those in charge care about the dollars and despite the B1G business prowess and massive revenue generation, the product still has been sub par to the traditional on field product.  So to date, the dollars have not equaled success on the field.

Again, as a fan, I do not care how deep the pockets are in the league office...I want the B1G to be athletically superior.  I want to be able to travel down south, like I used to do, and talk smack that the SEC doesnt play D and is just a bunch of idiots running fly routes on O.  The tide has shifted big time and quickly on that...and now that we are ushering in a new era with the playoff system, I would like to take the throne back for the B1G on the field rather than in the board room.

Just my opinion as a fan.

 

+1 HS
Chief B1G Dump's picture

EDIT:  Apparently I was so amped on my opinion that I posted this twice.

The dreaded double post.

FROMTHE18's picture

This sounds like a high school popularity contest…who would you rather be: the nerd going to harvard on a scholarship or the jock athlete who will flunk out of community college? To me, SEC is all smoke and mirrors. Its success is mostly from corrupt recruiting tactics, bs scheduling/pre-season ranking stuff, and ESPN dry humping them, while the B1G is collecting the dough and maintaining some form of self-respect. 

Chief B1G Dump's picture

So you watch college athletics for the strong conference branding?  You tune it not for the product on the field but because the conference has acquired member institutions to garner more capital, thus bolstering the conference brand?

I dont like the SEC and I too am of the opinion that some of the SEC's institutions are operating outside of the boundaries in recruiting and/or over signing and/or easy admission standards...but with that being said, the SEC created it's own negotiating power and heightened conference brand recognition through success on the field.  This allowed them to strength to negotiate with ESPN and allows for the ability to further self perpetuate the on the field product and fluff rankings in their favor.  Conversely, the B1G on field product has totally suffered but they have masterfully negotiated backroom deals to acquire lesser athletic programs under the academics guise, when we all know it was about market/footprint eyeballs and BTN negotiating posturing.  This is akin to Michigan's holier than thou schtick they have been using every time they lose for as long as I can remember - everyone else is dirty or cheats which must be why they win - even though Woodson took money, the Fab5, etc.

Which path is smoke and mirrors?  

There is more than one way to skin a cat as a conference commissioner but Again, as a fan, I want the on the field product and do not care how much money and/or the strength of the conference brand.  I dont think member schools have to completely abandon respectful standards to succeed on the field...but I would take far more conference pride in a string of national titles than I would for each member collecting more money due to conference network TV deals that do nothing for me.  I watch and go to be entertained, not because Delaney has negotiated the BTN into more homes.  

Outside of their respective fan bases, a vast majority of the country would watch an Ole Miss vs Arkansas game over Purdue vs Maryland given the choice (simple arbitrary bottom rung schools).

MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

A part of me still wishes Pitt was added to the B1G.

Because Mark May.

+5 HS
MeyerMattaScarletHeroes's picture

The last 4 times Pitt has played Ohio State, the average cumulative score has been:

54 - 11
 

Hovenaut's picture

Great read all around, love the Zimmerman comment.

The sport is cyclical - I can't think of a southern school (unless you consider Texas) that made any consistent impact in major college football until The U in the 80's-90's. I think the B1G will find better days ahead.

It's hard to expect any team to roll off 20 some-odd wins in a row - I'm hoping to see some wins in games with true substance.

Soon (cue the Urb gif).

jamesrbrown322's picture

Instead of Nebraska, Rutgers, and Maryland, who would you rather have? (Look at the business side too)

IMO, A perfect, dream scenario was probably Notre Dame, UNC, and Texas. It would have fit the exposure/competition/academic requirements for which the B1G was looking.

However, the more realistic, but better than current additions, scenario was UNC, Virgina or Va Tech., and Rutgers or Syracuse. So, at least they got one of those teams.

"I can accept failure, but I cannot accept not trying." - W.W. Hayes

YTOWNBUCKI's picture

I agree that I don't think there were many better options.  I thought the Nebraska add was very solid.  The only better suitor in that case would have been ND.

I would have preffered VA Tech over Rutgers though and I think they would have joined.  They fit the midwest mentality since they are a huge agricultural school.  Plus, it would have extended the B1G into the south.

+1 HS
otrain2416's picture

I like the strategy of adding them from a business standpoint for the TV market. Maryland is going to bring great lacrosse to our conference too. If I had to pick two different schools it would be Notre Dame and Missouri.