Maryland is good at basketball.
Fuck eSECpn and fuck Mythigan.
And they dominate men’s and women’s lacrosse.
"You beat cancer by how you live, why you live, & in the manner in which you live.
So, live. Live. Fight like hell. And when you get too tired to fight then lay down and rest and let somebody else fight for you. "
- Stuart Scott
It’s not all about football.
No alternate unis yet so you need something else to rant about?
PG <3 PG
At least it isn't about a snitch.
Nothing cleanses the soul like a no call pass interference.
Desmond ancedotaly said that any Big 10 school with less than 25 years membership never intended to be good at football
How much does Desmond make? Seems like ESPN is hiding something if they won’t tell us.
What’s Michigan’s excuse?
Agree would rather see us play Minny and Iowa in place of these two teams. Call me unimpressed
Ummm they weren’t added for their football prowess so be prepared for a whole thread of “TV money and anything else”. Just because football is the only thing you care about, it doesn’t mean that it’s the only thing that mattered in the decision.
I'm pretty sure Delaney didn't bank on both programs having embarrassing scandals upon arrival in the B1G that brought negative press to the conference (Rutgers with Kyle Flood trying to pay off professors to pass his players in every class so they could remain eligible and Maryland being so grossly negligent with their S&C staff that a kid actually died under their watch). Despite the market value it might've brought to the conference both of those programs are a blight to the B1G as a whole because they keep finding new ways to embarrass themselves every year (granted if Rutgers brings back Schiano and he turns them around that could change, as for Maryland I see no end in sight to their misery in football right now, Locksley is just straight up an incompetent head coach).
I only disagree with one thing, the real blight on the Big Ten is Penn State. They might be good for making football better, but they should have been kicked out after the Sandusky deal.
Wite-out Penn State?
An angry fan...rooting for an angry team...led by angry coaches
Ohio State’s scandal is worse, it just hasn’t gotten as much media coverage because the guy is dead.
No scandal in the history of the NCAA is worse than the Sandusky scandal (the only other scandal that comes close in terms of sheer gravity is Maryland's tragic situation with Jordan McNair last year). What happened with Strauss was bad no question and shouldn't have gone unchecked the way it did but the Sandusky mess is in a league of it's own. CHILDREN were victimized in that scandal (for almost 20 years I might add) and the entire PSU administration from top to bottom actively conspired to keep it quiet for years (all while allowing Sandusky free access to their facilities even once he was no longer employed by the school). Not to mention the school had the audacity to sue the NCAA to get Joe's wins back after the sanctions happened (I wonder how the victims felt about that callous decision). Hell, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz (all former PSU administrators) all served prison time for their roles in that mess, that's how bad it was (and it's possible Paterno might've faced legal action as well had he not passed away from cancer 2 months after he was fired). What OSU neglected to do with Strauss was inexcusable no question but there's few scandals in CFB that can top the Jerry Sandusky scandal. It's the worst of the worst and quite frankly PSU might've deserved the death penalty for it given how long they covered it up.
More like Buttgers and Buttland amirite
(because they're ass my dude)
I'm not convinced they bring in more that they benefit from.Should have offered maybe Mizzou/VTech - 2 interested programs a few yrs back
Isn't Mizzou the SEC's scapegoat program right now lol? Anytime one of the big dogs like Bama or Georgia commits an NCAA violation Mizzou gets punished for it lol. I know they're facing brutal sanctions right now thanks to a former tutor doing schoolwork for their players.
Mizzou has had some serious problems recently. They are currently facing sanctions but the NCAA hasn't told them what they would be from last year. They still don't know if they will be able to play in a bowl game. A couple years ago the players also considered boy cotting a game because of racism from the administration. They are dealing with a lot right now.
I know. The joke around the SEC is that if a program like Alabama or Georgia were ever caught committing NCAA violations that Missouri (or Ole Miss after the Hugh Freeze fiasco) would take the punishment for it lol. Missouri is completely irrelevant as a program and rarely a national power so the NCAA wouldn't hesitate to drop the hammer on them like they would if Alabama was the offending party.
well at least they're getting some sort of attention unlike the state Uiniversity of New Jersey :- D.Mizzou has St Loius/KC so some recruiting stars,hell Zeke's from there didn't know about the violationr but right know Chase has a violation.But IMO the additions were a bad move
Mizzou would qualify as an AAU member but VA Tech would not, although it arguably would meet the AAU criteria for membership; for the same reason ND does not meet the B1G membership criteria.
As for what Rutgers and UMD bring to the B1G, the big benefit and driving reasons for membership is research. Adding them adds to the B1G's research footprint and that is where the serious money is; not in football or TV rights. The B1G is a research consortium first and foremost; it just happens that sports is the most visible, if not most lucrative, aspect of membership.
Strive at all times to bend, fold, spindle and mutilate.
I don’t want to hear about TV money or anything else, these two programs have watered down Big Ten football.
Then I’m sure glad that the B1G is more than just football.
I have zero issues with the additions. I would like to see in the next round of additions, CENTRAL FLORIDA and SOUTHERN FLORIDA added to the BIG TEN. The area that they represent is PRIME for the BIG TEN to exploit. Miami is down and it looks like that school will stay that way and the other so called "power houses" in the state are in the northern part of the state.
That is just a terrible idea. I want to add teams I want to see OSU play. Playing USF in a conference game is just bad. If they don't end up being good we now just have a 500 mile flight to play Rutgers of the south.
If the playoff expands to 8 games with AQs I dont see any further expansion by anybody other than the Big 12. Why add more competition for an automatic playoff spot.
Absolutely not. The B1G is a midwest conference, and even adding Rutgers and Maryland was a stretch, but at least it all still connects. It woud suck to be one of those conferences that just starts adding pieces that have no place, and two teams way down in Florida doesn't fit the culture or geography of the B1G.
USF? That game would be a lame non conference, if they absolutely had to add a non midwest/border state, it would only be acceptable if it was a big time program, not a directional school.
My aim, then, is to whip the Weasels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom. - William Tecumseh Sherman (with apologies)
Neither are AAU members. If the B1G wanted to go south they'd have to get GA Tech and Florida.
Expansion made sense and expanding east made sense. Getting two large public P5 schools in New Jersey/Maryland which are very strong high school football states was not a terrible move. These schools simply have no existing public support which makes it hard to build a program. Rutgers also has no private funding and isn't on par facility wise with anybody in the conference.
If we had to expand I wish Notre Dame would have said yes but they did not. Pairing Notre Dame with Maryland or even with Kansas would have been good moves. Kansas would have brought a top 5 basketball program and kept the midwest identity intact. While having only Maryland would still give the B1G an east coast footprint without having Rutgers sandbagging the conference. Notre Dame is the reason we have Rutgers.
Rutgers and Maryland both beat TTUN in their first year in the conference. They are good in my book.
Edit: This is an easy way to shut up those smug bastards up north, because blue blood programs do not lose to Maryland and Rutgers.
The oddest thing about Rutgers/Maryland is they entered the conference and were really solid. After 1 year it looked like it would work out and they had the ability to reach bowls and recruit their respective states. I don't know what happened but they both just completely broke down.
Ehhh, Rutgers was in the tail end of the Kyle Flood era when they joined (both schools joined in 2014 and Flood was fired in 2015 as was Randy Edsall). And as we know it was later determined that they had been cheating during that time period and that Flood was trying to grant special favors to his players from the faculty (and doing a poor job of covering his tracks in the process). Once Flood was ousted and Ash was brought in to run a clean program everything went to shit. Maryland was in the tail end of the Edsall era when they joined and they were a complete mess back then as well. They just somehow got worse under Durkin when he brought his fire and brimstone madness culture in and now they've appeared to top even that incompetence under Locksley somehow. Both programs have been nothing short of complete shitshows since they joined the conference, they just keep finding new ways to outdo themselves.
Here's another way:
TBDSNITL: The best damn screen name in the land!
I doubt either school will beat OSU in my lifetime.
I told my wife the same thing about Northwestern, before we were married in the 1990's.
Maryland lost by one to them last season. Never say never.
Tom Brady lost to John Cooper. Never forget.
Yeah, and why Maryland chose not to stick with the head coach of that team going forward was just bizarre to me. Matt Canada was a good coach and got the team to rally around him in the middle of extreme turmoil surrounding the program. Locksley has been a significant downgrade from him considering the players already appear to be half-assing it in only his first season. I definitely don't think Maryland will beat OSU as long as Lox is the head coach there.
No clouds outside to yell at?
You made me laugh, Stxbuck
I'm biased with Maryland, but aside from football I think they've proven worthy as they've stabilized after leaving the ACC under duress. The football team under Locksley need time after last year, and it's only become tougher in recent weeks.
Past the TV market hook and expanding the conference footprint into the NE, I don't know what Rutgers brings competitively (women's basketball, lacrosse?). The word that Schiano comes back to the football program might be positive news, but he has a tall order in just rebuilding the program, let alone finding past success (national rankings, bowl bids).
More on both football programs here:
Hindsight is, and in, 2020
What about Nebraska? What's it gonna take to fix that former football machine?
The hue and cry on Corn Nation is that the Huskers are out of their element, in the B1G. If consulted, I suspect Meyer would reply, "Find a way to recruit better!"
Read Hallie Grossman's fine article on the subject and you'll come away with the impression Husker fans fear they're program's on the eve of destruction:
The thing that I love about blaming the conference is when people act like its 1950 and the reason teams can recruit well is only if they play in that area. OSU has players from CA,TX,MO,NC,AZ, and WA in this current class. OSU is getting these players because they have good recruits on staff not because of conference affiliation.
Nebraska rues the day they decided to join the Big Ten. They were forced when TX started Longhorn network. Nebraska will be nothing more than an average to at best good team. Never great.
Nebraska was a competitive team under Pelini and could hold their own. Once they fired him and replaced him with Riley they plunged into the bowels of the conference.
The Bo Pelini Huskers were a good team when they first entered the conference. But then internal politics forced Bo out and then their administration made the fatal mistake of replacing him with Mike Riley. Frost right now is still trying to fix the damage that Riley created (not turning down Joe Burrow when he was interested in going to Lincoln might've been a good first step towards doing that but ultimately Frost's loyalty to Adrian Martinez won out and he's paying for that now as Martinez has struggled this year while Burrow is the frontrunner for the Heisman).
I love the addition of RU and UMD, but it really is NOT because of the OP's request regarding the football quality thus far. It's because I look forward to a day when we have the B1G Ten at its peak. We're getting there, but we won't arrive until RU and UMD have excellent facilities, coaches, and recruiting classes. Here's why I love the expansion:
1) the amazing financial impact it's had on the B1G, which has allowed it to hire and retain the best coaches and facilities possible, thereby enriching the recruiting influx at the same time, and
2) because I look forward to the days when RU and UMD are on par with the rest of the conference in terms of facilities and coaching talent, to create a "peak B1G" conference. We're quite far from that, but they've at least made a lot of progress on facilities. Locksley looks terrible right now, but maybe Schiano part deux will be a boon somehow to RU again.
“When we feel love and kindness toward others, it not only makes others feel loved and cared for, but it helps us also to develop inner happiness and peace.” – Dalai Lama.
Maryland is fine because they're competitive in a lot of sports that aren't football necessarily. Rutgers has been miserable and almost an embarrassment to the B10.
Yeah... you're right.
As programs, clearly the Big Ten expected them to be further along six years in than they are now.
The thing that gets forgotten in this, I think, is the level to which these schools were the chosen by the Big Ten. There were plenty of other choices if they wanted to pursue them. Remember, this all happened right in the midst of the most drastic shakeup in conferences in 20+ years. There was nothing sacred at that point. The Pacific 10/12, added a team 1500+ miles from the Pacific Ocean. Texas A&M ended up in the Southeastern Conference. The Big East got totally blown up. To this day, Pitt is in the ACC Coastal division even though they're 500 miles from the coast and Navy is in the American West division, even though they're essentially on the Atlantic.
There was talk of Texas joining the Big Ten, among several other schools all over the place geographically, but this was the calculated choice the Big Ten made. They could've very easily added programs with more football prowess, but they didn't want to repeat the Nebraska addition, which netted so little for the conference. So they went for the pure money play, selling out football quality at all costs. ALL they cared about was the markets. Rutgers had a good run under Schiano, but they had 4 winning seasons in the 20 years before him. If Rutgers and Maryland aren't as far along as they expected or hoped, it's entirely their fault.
So they went for the pure money play, selling out football quality at all costs. ALL they cared about was the markets.
This is untrue.
B1G went for schools that were AAU, big research schools, that fit the culture of the B1G. Rutgers is not as strong athletically, but is a top tier research school, and a land grant at that. They fit the B1G academically. Yes, they also are in the NY media market, which is one reason they were targeted. But the media presence was far from the most important factor.
FYI, research dollars dwarf athletic income and prestige.
Yes, you are totally correct about that. A ton of it had to do with research dollars and all of the points you mention. I'm simplifying it quite a bit. However, those things weren't mutually exclusive. A lot of that would've come with other large state schools that also could've provided better football.
I concur. It wasn’t done in a vacuum. The footprint did play a part.
And I agree that we could have drawn in better football schools that fulfilled most of the same requirements. However, that list isn’t huge. But it could have been done if the other schools were receptive. But I think that there are only like 43 AAU universities to begin with (and Nebraska lost their status after they joined, due to their medical school separating from main campus).
You guys are overlooking the massive recruiting benefit of being able to tell recruits...."Hy, if you come to OSU, every two years you get a trip to Piscataway."
Would really like to see the "inroads" into the NYC and DC. ENTERTAINMENT market since Twerps and the Rug entered. With the Giants, Jets, Nets, Knicks, Islanders, Redskins, Broadway, Carnegie Hall, etc. available to that particular population, I suspect very, very little. Spent alot of time in Northern Jersey, Staten Island, Brooklyn because I have family there and that was my recruiting area. Those people are saturated with OTHER choices and could not care less about College anything. This was Jo Pa's pick. Were lucky to get college news until the 3rd page of the Sport sections of the Star Ledger, Post.,etc.,
Those people are saturated with OTHER choices and could not care less about College anything.
It’s not that there’s fans that choose to spend money, it’s that the cable providers in that region all start carrying the Big Ten Network and all those people end up paying for it whether they’re Rutgers/Maryland fans or not.
Disaster for Maryland and Rutgers lol
"I find your lack of kalua disturbing" - Darth Lebowski
Roads in Michigan are really smooth and the people there are always happy.......NOT
Maryland leaving the ACC never made any sense to me - although I'm sure this was all mostly financially motivated. I always enjoyed the regional conferences. Would love to swap Maryland for Pitt as well as seeing Texas A&M back in the Big 12. Rutgers really could be Big 10 or ACC so they are fine as a doormat for the conference.
Yes, it was all about $'s for MD. They actually had dropped 7 sports that they could not afford. Gary Williams sold a lot of people on going to the Big 10. MD is actually upgrading their facilities, and they have recruited pretty well, they are actually 5th most talented team in the Big 10 according to 247 HS rankings https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/?C... Way behind OSU, PSU, and TTUN, but only a little behind Nebraska. RU and MD joining the Big 10 probably also helps OSU with recruiting those states.
I understand grabbing Penn ST(couldn't know about the scandal then).And Nebraska had a lineage and in the footprint next to Iowa.But the last two were grasping at straws.I wish both schools well but bigger isn't always better just too far out of the region,no history and seemingly no draw/interest
Living in Maryland most fans I know wish they were still in the ACC, really because of basketball.
You're too stupid to have a good time. -Dalton
Should have been Pittsburg instead of Rutgers.
Rutgers really belongs in the AAC if anything.
It seems AAU status is a critical factor. Although both teams don't quite fit the Big Ten mold. However, I am learning to think of them as Big Ten teams. It is unfortunate they are not great at football, but I can remember about 4 years ago Purdue being accused of accepting BIG money and doing nothing but being a garbage team... and a few years later we are upset. Some teams aren't good. Those teams change. Last year NW won the west, this year they are bad. Things change
RU and MD will get better. I'm fine with their addition. Every conference has bottom feeders. We are blessed to be a top tier program, and I appreciate all the teams in the BIG and wish all but one well.
On another note. I would love to see the practice of relegation employed in the NCAA. That has been brought up before. I love that idea. I'm not entirely sure how it would work best, but think it would be fun to see it in action.
My call is for a big 10 and little 10. Same conference for academics, but you split the athletics up and make it sport by sport. You could even have cross-over games between the two.
I hate both additions. All I care about is football, the product on the field. I don't give a damn about the money. I wanted 2 good football schools. Would have far preferred Oklahoma, whose president I've read would like the B1G over the Big 12. Virginia Tech would have been ok too.
I would like to see an analysis of how much marginal TV revenue these two actually bring to the B1G, since that was the big selling point for the expansion. Given cable cutting and the like, I suspect it is much less than originally promised.
Both schools are a bad cultural fit, and I would vote them of the island if that were an option, although I hate the MD addition slightly less than Rutgers. The addition of those schools is also unlikely to have much bearing on our recruiting, as OSU has drawn players from the area going back to the days of Woody.
We needed to have added Southern schools to help with recruiting. The future is in the South with demographics shifting there.
Its two stress free weekends a year.
I'm sorry but I differ with those who suggested we add Southern schools to the Big Ten. I am too old (watched Woody Hayes) and old-fashioned to want the Big Ten to be anything but a Midwestern conference. I do not want anyone from the South or West added. The additions of Rutgers and Maryland are the limits of my tolerance. I'll manage to accept them for the tactical reasons of research and an eastern media presence and whatever they bring to athletics (like Maryland basketball) but that is it. Any other additions to the Big Ten should be from the Midwest and only the Midwest.
But in fairness to Rutgers maybe they are good in non-revenue sports. The women's world cup reminded me that USWNT starter Carli Lloyd went to Rutgers. She's since performed the stunt of kicking a practice 55 yard "field goal". Having seen woeful kicking by the Chicago Bears maybe they're one team that could use a Rutgers athlete.
Marylands biggest mistake was not hiring PJ Fleck when they had an opening and going with Durkin instead. When Edsall was let go, they said they wanted an offensive minded coach...and went with Durkin. Fleck at Maryland, with the recruits available in the surrounding area and Under Armour backing the program, Maryland would be a serious contender by now, maybe not at Ohio State's level, but firmly in the 2nd tier with TTUN and PSU. He's a better coach then Harbaugh and Franklin and it would show on gameday against them both. They set themselves backwards several years with that hire and now Locksley.
My interests (and arguably all of ours on this board) differ from conference interests. To put that to example, NW is an outstanding institution to have in the Big Ten Conference, but had it been NW and Rutgers who were added, rather than NW being a charter member, we could still be having this debate. Maryland and Rutgers were added for their respected status as strong Research institutions and due to their geographic positioning in the East which had potential to open up new TV markets and added conference exposure in NYC and DC - arguably the two most influential American cities.
But from my interests (and probably many others) these additions have been duds. We've replaced matchups with Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and NW - programs with which we share a 100+ year athletic history with annual football beatdowns of Rutgers and Maryland in what rival games against MAC competition. On the basketball side, while Maryland has been competitive we are playing Michigan, Indiana, MSU, and Purdue less frequently than ever, even with an expanded conference schedule.
ND was a no-go. They are a great fit for the Big Ten from the Big Ten's perspective, but as much as I hate ND, I understand that they would have no desire to give up NBC, annual trips to the West Coast to play USC and Stanford, and annual games in recruiitng hotbeds like Texas and the Southeast. If you want to see what ND would look like in the Big Ten, look no further than Nebraska. they barely compete with Ohio State nationally these days as it is. Regionalizing themselves to the Midwest is not going to improve that.
That said, I think Texas and OU would have been the go-to additions rather than Rutgers and MD. OU would be the worst academic member, but is respected enough to make the cut. Texas would be a perfect fit for everything but geography, but geography is an ever-decreasing factor in conference alignment. Texas and OU would balance the West and East in football while adding competitive basketball programs. Thanksgiving weekend would feature a renewal of the OU-Nebraska game on Friday followed by Ohio State Michigan on Saturday. OU's academics along with the in-state politics surrounding Oklahoma State and Texas Tech/Baylor/TCU caused issues (it's no coincidence that our last 4 additions - PSU, Nebraska, Maryland, and Rutgers) are all essentially the lone in-state premier public institution), but from my perspective, Texas and OU should have been the targets.
Agree on all counts. I've posted before that Texas is the only grand slam addition on the horizon. Not that I'm advocating expansion, but if it's going to happen anyway, the B1G should grab the prize pieces. Although adding OU would make sense from balance, and preserving a traditional rivalry, they are not an AAU member, which would be a big problem for them. If NB has lost their membership before they joined the B1G, they would never have gotten in.
Just from a competition stand point Rutgers has been a disaster. But MD has been a reasonable addition overall
Rutgers has been bad at nearly every sport. Take this past year's conference records. Baseball = 9-14 10th place, M-Basketball = 7-13 Tied 10th, M-Lacrosse = 2-3 4th out of 6 teams, M-Soccer = 1-6-1 tied for last, Wrestling 5-4 7th, W-Gymnastics = 2-7 next to last, Field Hockey = 4-4 5th out of 10, W-Lacrosse = 0-6 Last, Softball = 11-12 6th, W-Tennis - 9-12 next to last, W Volleyball = 2-12 next to last
Women's Hoops and W-Soccer have been the only shining hope where they finished 13-5 and 3rd place last year in hoops and 8-2-1 and tied for 2nd in Soccer.
MD on the other hand has been far more balance
Baseball = 12-12 tied for 6th, M-Hoops = 13-7 5th, M-Lacrosse 3-2 T 2nd, M-Soccer = 3-3-2 4th out of 10, Wrestling = 0-9-0 last, W-Hoops = 15-3 1st, W-Gymnastics = 3-6 6th out of 10, Field Hockey - 7-1 1st, W-Lacrosse = 6-0 1st, W-Soccer = 5-5-1 6th, Softball = 4-19 last, W-Tennis = 3-18 last, W-Volleyball = 4-10 10th
I am fine with MD, Rutgers could be replaced by Ohio U and I would be fine with that
every year we have msu, um, and psu and we don't have a chicken shit saturday like the SEC so I am ok with a couple of in conference powder puffs.
I hated the addition of Rutgers and Maryland. And to be totally honest, I've never been that thrilled with PSU or Nebraska either. If we absolutely had to add teams, I'd rather have Iowa State and Notre Dame and the original Big 10 teams.
Back to the original question: Rutgers and Maryland will almost undoubtedly never succeed in the Big 10. More than that, the TV money is going to dry up. It is only a matter of time. And when the TV money decreases, what is the motivation to keep them? Slim and none.
Should have added Pitt and notre dame I know nd wont....sucks having these two posers make a mockery of our league...rather play minny and iowa, etc every year. I would love to see the breakdown on what they add to our conference..I know Maryland is good at b ball...good at lacrosse..eyc..nebraska. wtf are they doing in our conference as well..
I'm fine with the Maryland addition, they aren't a complete waste. Rutgers on the other hand...