Conference Realignment Thread (Maryland & Rutgers join the Big Ten conference)

Qwiksilvur · Nov 18, 2012, 03:58 PM

If the end goal is 16 then there are limited options...essentially you're looking at Maryland, Rutgers, ND (if they deem the new look ACC lacking), Virginia, and Vtech (though idk if they are an AAU member). One would be left out. And the Virginia's are likely only in play if FSU and/or Clemson bolt to the Big12.

Regardless if ACC loses both Maryland and FSU (the two that voted not to raise the exit fee) Memphis and UCONN are prolly going ACC. Or thats my guess anyways

Dan · Nov 18, 2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Maryland votes on B1G Monday; Kevin Plank "100 percent" behind move, regent tells @ESPN http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...en-move-monday

http://twitter.com/McMurphyESPN

Illini87InClt · Nov 18, 2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IlliniKat91

Ready to throw myself behind this idea wholeheartedly just because Teddy Greenstein is against it.

+1 I was thinking something along the same line. :laugh:

mattcoldagelli · Nov 18, 2012, 04:05 PM

They would be out of their minds to not take the invite. The B1G isn't just a step up, it's a financial lifesaver for them.

trevdv · Nov 18, 2012, 04:39 PM

I just feel like this is stretching some fans' tolerance.

1993 - Penn State joins the Big Ten to make there eleven teams in the conference. The general consensus was that this was a so-so add, but not too great to have an odd number of teams in the conference.

2011 - Nebraska added to the Big Ten, along with new logo, TV network, and divisions (in football). Once again a somewhat negative and/or hesitant reaction from the fans.

2012 - (possibly) Maryland and Rutgers added.

This just seems like they've stretched the fans' tolerance too far; first the Big Ten made fans deal with having an odd amount of teams, then we had to adjust to having Nebraska. Now we have to welcome in two teams from the east east east coast? For only so long will the Big Ten keep their large contingent of fans if they keep on making additions like these.

IlliniKat91 · Nov 18, 2012, 04:40 PM

Given that Plank is "100%" behind the move, I find the rumor that he's ready to sell 1.3 million shares of Under Armour interesting, since it would equal approx. $64.5 million.

Report: Maryland and Rutgers in negotiations with the Big Ten

Quote:

If Maryland were to need any help with finding $50 million for the exit fee, there is one person they could ask. Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank is selling in upwards of 1.3 million shares of his company, which according to Baltimore Business Journal would be worth up to $64.5 million.

If that's purely coincidence as the article claims, well, I'll eat my hat. That seems like an awfully well-timed coincidence.

And because this was more fun than working on my grading:

http://memegenerator.net/instance/30434947 (I can't get it to embed).

mattcoldagelli · Nov 18, 2012, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevdv

I just feel like this is stretching some fans' tolerance.

1993 - Penn State joins the Big Ten to make there eleven teams in the conference. The general consensus was that this was a so-so add, but not too great to have an odd number of teams in the conference.

2011 - Nebraska added to the Big Ten, along with new logo, TV network, and divisions (in football). Once again a somewhat negative and/or hesitant reaction from the fans.

2012 - (possibly) Maryland and Rutgers added.

This just seems like they've stretched the fans' tolerance too far; first the Big Ten made fans deal with having an odd amount of teams, then we had to adjust to having Nebraska. Now we have to welcome in two teams from the east east east coast? For only so long will the Big Ten keep their large contingent of fans if they keep on making additions like these.

Tolerance for what, exactly? Are they going to cheer for another school in another conference?

Joel Goodson · Nov 18, 2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IlliniKat91

Ready to throw myself behind this idea wholeheartedly just because Teddy Greenstein is against it.

LOL, +1

Greenstein is an ultra douche.

Joel Goodson · Nov 18, 2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

Tolerance for what, exactly? Are they going to cheer for another school in another conference?

For sure, Chicago State. Why anyone would expect alums to stick with their alma mater is beyond me.

mattcoldagelli · Nov 18, 2012, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevdv

I just feel like this is stretching some fans' tolerance.

1993 - Penn State joins the Big Ten to make there eleven teams in the conference. The general consensus was that this was a so-so add, but not too great to have an odd number of teams in the conference.

2011 - Nebraska added to the Big Ten, along with new logo, TV network, and divisions (in football). Once again a somewhat negative and/or hesitant reaction from the fans.

2012 - (possibly) Maryland and Rutgers added.

Come on. The only people hesitant about PSU's move to the Big Ten were at PSU (because they fantasized about going East for their conference affiliation). Having an odd number of teams was not a significant factor.

The TV network was launched in 2007, not 2011, and has been arguably the most positive thing the conference has ever collectively done. Fans were "negative and/or hesitant" about having more access to their teams? The only hiccup was whether certain providers would get BTN in time for the start of football season.

I, for one, am pretty thrilled that Jim Delany does not move at the speed of what fans will "tolerate," otherwise this conference would be in deep trouble.

trevdv · Nov 18, 2012, 05:32 PM

Look, here was my simple point: some fans tolerated things like the addition of Nebraska and the names of the divisions through the skin of their teeth. So adding a team like Maryland that has little-to-no place in the B1G is stretching that level of tolerance even further.

trevdv · Nov 18, 2012, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

The TV network was launched in 2007, not 2011, and has been arguably the most positive thing the conference has ever collectively done.

I meant the network's "revamp." They were the Big Ten Network from 2007 to 2010, with only a couple quality announcers and analysts. Then they switched their logo, renamed themselves "BTN" and came up with things like BTN2Go, The Journey, etc. I agree, it has been a huge positive for the B1G Conference. Adding Maryland and Rutgers would not be.

illinicb · Nov 18, 2012, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevdv

I just feel like this is stretching some fans' tolerance.

1993 - Penn State joins the Big Ten to make there eleven teams in the conference. The general consensus was that this was a so-so add, but not too great to have an odd number of teams in the conference.

2011 - Nebraska added to the Big Ten, along with new logo, TV network, and divisions (in football). Once again a somewhat negative and/or hesitant reaction from the fans.

2012 - (possibly) Maryland and Rutgers added.

This just seems like they've stretched the fans' tolerance too far; first the Big Ten made fans deal with having an odd amount of teams, then we had to adjust to having Nebraska. Now we have to welcome in two teams from the east east east coast? For only so long will the Big Ten keep their large contingent of fans if they keep on making additions like these.

It's reality and we are going to have to deal with it. Old rivalries and opponents with names we know were the norm and I liked that too. I don't like the DH or velcro or microwave meals. Times change for better or for worse. Our dissatisfaction with the new alignment won't have enough impact to change anything or keep anything from changing.

mattcoldagelli · Nov 18, 2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevdv

Look, here was my simple point: some fans tolerated things like the addition of Nebraska and the names of the divisions through the skin of their teeth. So adding a team like Maryland that has little-to-no place in the B1G is stretching that level of tolerance even further.

If you're putting the names of the divisions (which I agree are terrible) on the same plane as conference membership, you're kind of asking to not be taken seriously.

Who was against the Nebraska add? Why does Maryland have no place in the Big Ten? And again, what are you suggesting "some fans" will do? Switch allegiances to the ACC? Become MAC fans?

Sure Shot · Nov 18, 2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by illinicb

It's reality and we are going to have to deal with it. Old rivalries and opponents with names we know were the norm and I liked that too. I don't like the DH or velcro or microwave meals. Times change for better or for worse. Our dissatisfaction with the new alignment won't have enough impact to change anything or keep anything from changing.

Well, I guess we'll just sit back and enjoy it as Jim Delaney treats the money tree that is the BTN like that crazy Bama guy treated the Auburn oaks.

trevdv · Nov 18, 2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

If you're putting the names of the divisions (which I agree are terrible) on the same plane as conference membership, you're kind of asking to not be taken seriously.

Why does Maryland have no place in the Big Ten?

What are you suggesting "some fans" will do?

1) I'm not putting division names next to conference membership. I'm listing in no particular order things B1G fans may or may not be displeased with.

2) Read Dan's post... his reasons sum it all up.

3) I'm not suggesting people will stop being fans of the B1G. I'm suggesting that some will start to think of these conferences as a joke when an atlantic coastal team is in the B1G and a California team is in the Big East. I just think the conference will lose some credibility when they start adding teams from the ACC, and therefore also lose some fans.

Illini87InClt · Nov 18, 2012, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevdv

Look, here was my simple point: some fans tolerated things like the addition of Nebraska and the names of the divisions through the skin of their teeth. So adding a team like Maryland that has little-to-no place in the B1G is stretching that level of tolerance even further.

We really had no choice in the matter with picking up Nebraska and on the naming of the division. If Maryland and Rutgers are added, I hope that the B1G will take the opportunity to lose the division names and go with a geographic division name like the SEC and Pac12 have adopted.

Sure Shot · Nov 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattcoldagelli

Who was against the Nebraska add?

*raises hand*

Redfoxdogs · Nov 18, 2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

*raises hand*

Me Two.

mattcoldagelli · Nov 18, 2012, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevdv

2) Read Dan's post... his reasons sum it all up.

Dan's post is predicated on the fallacy that "standing pat at 12" is a realistic path forward. A quick look around the landscape of college sports - especially football - should show you that the "stability" since the last reshuffle is temporary at best. Other schools are going to move and other conferences are going to get bigger.

So once you've accepted that, his second point becomes moot - if you've got to expand, you're going to have to look beyond premier programs, because there just aren't that many available for the taking right now. You look for institutions that fit your profile, don't actively take things OFF the table in terms of conference prestige (like a school like Louisville would) and brings you potential non-athletic benefits in terms of demographics, TV audiences and regional exposure. Maryland and Rutgers fit all of these criteria.

DrewD007 · Nov 18, 2012, 05:49 PM

I don't know really anyone who was opposed to expanding in 2011. It got us to 12 teams and a championship game, which I think is a positive. Maybe some had gripes with it being Nebraska, but I think it's been good overall.

I can certainly understand the hesitation in adding Maryland and Rutgers though. Nothing about those programs really jumps out aside from the potential number of TV sets in their regions.

trevdv · Nov 18, 2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illini87InClt

We really had no choice in the matter with picking up Nebraska and on the naming of the division. If Maryland and Rutgers are added, I hope that the B1G will take the opportunity to lose the division names and go with a geographic division name like the SEC and Pac12 have adopted.

So what do you suggest they do with the divisions? East and West? If so, then you would have to have either Indiana or Michigan in the east division, meaning longer flights more frequently. Or Ohio State in the west division, meaning traveling to Iowa and Nebraska (long trips) more frequently. Any way you slice it, these divisions would not provide easy travel if Rutgers and Maryland were to join. And IF they were to join, they would most definitely both be in the east division. I've never seen two new teams both go into the same division in a conference.

DrewD007 · Nov 18, 2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sure Shot

*raises hand*

Were you against going to 12 or Nebraska being the 12th team?

Redfoxdogs · Nov 18, 2012, 05:51 PM

(sarcasm warning) Maybe we should split into A and B division like IWSL soccer. B division winner moves up next season, A division loser moves down. That way we could carry 20 teams! We might even make the top half of the B division one of these days!

Illini87InClt · Nov 18, 2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trevdv

So what do you suggest they do with the divisions? East and West? If so, then you would have to have either Indiana or Michigan in the east division, meaning longer flights more frequently. Or Ohio State in the west division, meaning traveling to Iowa and Nebraska (long trips) more frequently. Any way you slice it, these divisions would not provide easy travel if Rutgers and Maryland were to join.

East/West or Northwest/Southeast. There will be issues no matter how you slice it based on preserving longstanding rivalries. This will be messy no matter how the league is reconfigured.

The main point is that the current names strike me as pretentious and not helpful. With geographical divisions, there will still be some arbitrary assignments but many of the teams should be placed intuitively (e.g, Nebraska in the West or Northwest and PSU in the East/Southeast). There may be some gray area for schools in Indiana and Michigan since at least one of the four schools will probably go in the other division. Some schools will have to travel longer but bringing Rutgers and Maryland in should make for short travel for PSU, Rutgers, and PSU when they meet.

Nov 18, 2012, 04:05 PM	#154
mattcoldagelli Location: Evanston, IL Posts: 1,454	They would be out of their minds to not take the invite. The B1G isn't just a step up, it's a financial lifesaver for them. __________________ Twitter Blog #JoeTales

Nov 18, 2012, 05:49 PM	#171
DrewD007 Location: Swansea, IL Posts: 3,530	I don't know really anyone who was opposed to expanding in 2011. It got us to 12 teams and a championship game, which I think is a positive. Maybe some had gripes with it being Nebraska, but I think it's been good overall. I can certainly understand the hesitation in adding Maryland and Rutgers though. Nothing about those programs really jumps out aside from the potential number of TV sets in their regions. __________________ Follow me! http://www.twitter.com/illinidrew11

Nov 18, 2012, 03:58 PM	#151
Qwiksilvur Posts: 36	If the end goal is 16 then there are limited options...essentially you're looking at Maryland, Rutgers, ND (if they deem the new look ACC lacking), Virginia, and Vtech (though idk if they are an AAU member). One would be left out. And the Virginia's are likely only in play if FSU and/or Clemson bolt to the Big12. Regardless if ACC loses both Maryland and FSU (the two that voted not to raise the exit fee) Memphis and UCONN are prolly going ACC. Or thats my guess anyways

Nov 18, 2012, 04:39 PM	#155
trevdv Location: Champaign Posts: 2,572	I just feel like this is stretching some fans' tolerance. 1993 - Penn State joins the Big Ten to make there eleven teams in the conference. The general consensus was that this was a so-so add, but not too great to have an odd number of teams in the conference. 2011 - Nebraska added to the Big Ten, along with new logo, TV network, and divisions (in football). Once again a somewhat negative and/or hesitant reaction from the fans. 2012 - (possibly) Maryland and Rutgers added. This just seems like they've stretched the fans' tolerance too far; first the Big Ten made fans deal with having an odd amount of teams, then we had to adjust to having Nebraska. Now we have to welcome in two teams from the east east east coast? For only so long will the Big Ten keep their large contingent of fans if they keep on making additions like these.

Nov 18, 2012, 05:32 PM	#161
trevdv Location: Champaign Posts: 2,572	Look, here was my simple point: some fans tolerated things like the addition of Nebraska and the names of the divisions through the skin of their teeth. So adding a team like Maryland that has little-to-no place in the B1G is stretching that level of tolerance even further.

Nov 18, 2012, 05:51 PM	#174
Redfoxdogs Location: Gurnee, IL Posts: 46	(sarcasm warning) Maybe we should split into A and B division like IWSL soccer. B division winner moves up next season, A division loser moves down. That way we could carry 20 teams! We might even make the top half of the B division one of these days!