(01-09-2018 09:31 PM)murrdcu Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 08:20 AM)penguino Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:18 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Va & NC are now the #1 tarkets of B-10 & SEC, but there not intrested, so why waste your time.
NYC & Rutgers were always B-10 #1 targets, Nebraska sidetracked that plan.
Flipping MD was key, puts Va & NC at thier doorstep
Rutgers & ACC knew it was a done deal

This......GT was never in over RU.

Maryland was added to the Big Ten sometime in the winter during basketball season. I remember early that academic year that the Rutgers AD told a bunch of BMD’s at the football game in Fayetteville, AR that they were going to the B1G. Their announcement occur once the Big Ten found a fourteenth member. Months later, Maryland held their press conference, then the next day Rutgers did.

Correct. RU was told that it was next in line long before the official invitation came. It actually happened when we were bumped for #12 by Neb. The caveat was the B1G needed to find another suitable school to pair with us for expansion.

Ok, that simply needs to stop. Because there was literally no reason Rutgers couldn't have been #12.

What the Big Ten did was basically do a RFP. They got applications. Then, somehow the bidders were outed, and it brought in Nebraska. Surprise, surprise...who gets the spot?

Rutgers was a potential candidate from the moment PSU became #11. There were bigger fish for the Big Ten to catch, though. Big 8 peel-off's before the Big XII congealed (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas, etc.), the "near" Notre Dame miss at the end of the decade, and then the whole cluster**** that brought in Nebraska (at the expense of putting others, like Missouri, in a very uncomfortable spot).

I call BS on Rutgers "always" having the spot. Not even close. If UMD came forward and said, "you know, have you talked to my friends in Atlanta...," Ramblin' Wreck is now a Big Ten thing. Where Rutgers can feel "superior" is over the likes of Pitt and Missouri, who had enough against them that it didn't seem to matter what they could do to be seen by the conference. And over others not carrying AAU membership, like UConn, or whoever the conference said it spoke it that didn't match academically. End of list.

I understand history is written by the victors...but this just laughable. Be happy you're in the Big Ten, Rutgers, but still be modest about how and why you're there. It includes M-A-N-Y schools who don't want to be in it. It's not that great a club.

It was really poor leadership of the big 10 that they sat on expansion for so long after penn state got in? I mean why wait on ND for years and not have jumped to 12 back in 1991. You could have brought In Syracuse, Rutgers or Missouri with penn state and had 20 years of title games and building up those programs

(01-10-2018 12:06 PM)bluesox Wrote:  It was really poor leadership of the big 10 that they sat on expansion for so long after penn state got in? I mean why wait on ND for years and not have jumped to 12 back in 1991. You could have brought In Syracuse, Rutgers or Missouri with penn state and had 20 years of title games and building up those programs

It was said to be about quality rather than volume back then, and, the Big Ten being spiteful over the complications of twelve teams and a CCG, losing all of these rivalries, and then being made to change how it determined its Rose Bowl contributor.

In short, don't tell a bunch of state school presidents how their football conference should work. We have the limited "playoff" (it's just a +1) today because of these guys.

But, back then, the pedigree of some of the programs out there weren't the same. The Big Ten DID try to get Nebraska AND Colorado ahead of the Big XII formation. It was even ready to absorb what would basically become the Big XII North to a degree (sans Iowa State and Kansas State). Missouri was not a great football program then; a punching bag that Illinois and Iowa wanted no part of as an equal. You had Notre Dame coming to a vote (well, nearly...it was tabled) there at the end of the decade.

I don't know what the deal was with the Big East schools. Pitt was obviously a no for a couple of reasons, and not just because "mean old Penn State doesn't like me." Why not Syracuse...don't know. Rutgers had to be told it couldn't park football in the Meadowlands and to invest in its own facilities. They weren't close to a spot, but, they got enough ears and stuck with it.

(01-10-2018 11:38 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  Ok, that simply needs to stop. Because there was literally no reason Rutgers couldn't have been #12.

What the Big Ten did was basically do a RFP. They got applications. Then, somehow the bidders were outed, and it brought in Nebraska. Surprise, surprise...who gets the spot?

Rutgers was a potential candidate from the moment PSU became #11. There were bigger fish for the Big Ten to catch, though. Big 8 peel-off's before the Big XII congealed (Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas, etc.), the "near" Notre Dame miss at the end of the decade, and then the whole cluster**** that brought in Nebraska (at the expense of putting others, like Missouri, in a very uncomfortable spot).

I call BS on Rutgers "always" having the spot. Not even close. If UMD came forward and said, "you know, have you talked to my friends in Atlanta...," Ramblin' Wreck is now a Big Ten thing. Where Rutgers can feel "superior" is over the likes of Pitt and Missouri, who had enough against them that it didn't seem to matter what they could do to be seen by the conference. And over others not carrying AAU membership, like UConn, or whoever the conference said it spoke it that didn't match academically. End of list.

I understand history is written by the victors...but this just laughable. Be happy you're in the Big Ten, Rutgers, but still be modest about how and why you're there. It includes M-A-N-Y schools who don't want to be in it. It's not that great a club.

I have never seen ANY Rutgers fan deny that we hit the lottery getting into the B10. RU and its fans have dreamed about this Cinderella scenario for longer than "Memphis to the BE to be announced on Tuesday," flew around this board. We were in pocket and the B10 knew that. All the stars had to align just right for it to happen. Those stars included Jim Delany's push to expand the conference, PSU wanting to re-establish ties with former Eastern foes, and a **** pot of money being made by making the move.

There is no, "History being written by the victors," going on. I said RU was told that we had a spot. There was no written contract.

Not a chance of Md or any other single school dictating terms like that to the B10. If Jim Delany had been able to pull off a magic trick like raiding the ACC for Md, UVa AND UNC AND all three saying they wanted to bring GT as #16, then for sure RU is still in the AAC. But that didn't and wouldn't happen. If anything UNC would push for Duke.

Was GT looked at? Yes, without a doubt. As were several other ACC and B12 schools. For whatever reasons the metrics didn't work. One issue was GT being on an island compared to the rest of the conference causing travel concerns.

I'd love to hear all about all these, "M-A-N-Y schools who don't want to be in it." There are more than a few other P5 programs that would change conferences for B10 membership right now. You say you root for the little guy, which I take to be the G5. Pick one of those schools. My bet is that school's president and AD would give their balls to be in any P5 conference.

(01-04-2018 10:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 08:20 AM)penguino Wrote:  

(01-03-2018 11:18 PM)templefootballfan Wrote:  Va & NC are now the #1 tarkets of B-10 & SEC, but there not intrested, so why waste your time.
NYC & Rutgers were always B-10 #1 targets, Nebraska sidetracked that plan.
Flipping MD was key, puts Va & NC at thier doorstep
Rutgers & ACC knew it was a done deal

This......GT was never in over RU.

Georgia Tech cracks open the ACC in a way that Maryland didn't. (Especially if it's Maryland *AND* Georgia Tech.) That puts UNC and UVA (the real prizes for the Big Ten) in play.

Rutgers is the 2AM last resort after you strike out with the core ACC schools that would bring the BTN to the entire south Atlantic region.

The Big 10 had been talking about adding Rutgers on and off for 20 years. It's ignorant to suggest that they were a 2:00 am last resort.

(01-10-2018 04:43 PM)mushroomgod Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Georgia Tech cracks open the ACC in a way that Maryland didn't. (Especially if it's Maryland *AND* Georgia Tech.) That puts UNC and UVA (the real prizes for the Big Ten) in play.

Rutgers is the 2AM last resort after you strike out with the core ACC schools that would bring the BTN to the entire south Atlantic region.

The Big 10 had been talking about adding Rutgers on and off for 20 years. It's ignorant to suggest that they were a 2:00 am last resort.

I've read that the Big Ten had been grooming RU for Big Ten membership since the early 1990s as well but mostly from RU posters on this web site. Is there any evidence that attests to this claim?

(01-10-2018 12:28 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 12:06 PM)bluesox Wrote:  It was really poor leadership of the big 10 that they sat on expansion for so long after penn state got in? I mean why wait on ND for years and not have jumped to 12 back in 1991. You could have brought In Syracuse, Rutgers or Missouri with penn state and had 20 years of title games and building up those programs

It was said to be about quality rather than volume back then, and, the Big Ten being spiteful over the complications of twelve teams and a CCG, losing all of these rivalries, and then being made to change how it determined its Rose Bowl contributor.

In short, don't tell a bunch of state school presidents how their football conference should work. We have the limited "playoff" (it's just a +1) today because of these guys.

But, back then, the pedigree of some of the programs out there weren't the same. The Big Ten DID try to get Nebraska AND Colorado ahead of the Big XII formation. It was even ready to absorb what would basically become the Big XII North to a degree (sans Iowa State and Kansas State). Missouri was not a great football program then; a punching bag that Illinois and Iowa wanted no part of as an equal. You had Notre Dame coming to a vote (well, nearly...it was tabled) there at the end of the decade.

I don't know what the deal was with the Big East schools. Pitt was obviously a no for a couple of reasons, and not just because "mean old Penn State doesn't like me." Why not Syracuse...don't know. Rutgers had to be told it couldn't park football in the Meadowlands and to invest in its own facilities. They weren't close to a spot, but, they got enough ears and stuck with it.

There was a "No" vote by the ND Board of Trustees on Big Ten membership in London in 1999. It wasn't "tabled". It was unanimously rejected.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-...ll-program


http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/06/sports/sp-5501

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/06/sports...g-ten.html

(01-10-2018 05:22 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:43 PM)mushroomgod Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Georgia Tech cracks open the ACC in a way that Maryland didn't. (Especially if it's Maryland *AND* Georgia Tech.) That puts UNC and UVA (the real prizes for the Big Ten) in play.

Rutgers is the 2AM last resort after you strike out with the core ACC schools that would bring the BTN to the entire south Atlantic region.

The Big 10 had been talking about adding Rutgers on and off for 20 years. It's ignorant to suggest that they were a 2:00 am last resort.

I've read that the Big Ten had been grooming RU for Big Ten membership since the early 1990s as well but mostly from RU posters on this web site. Is there any evidence that attests to this claim?

Well its not like they are going to put out an official press release for a candidate that they gave a wink and nod to but not officially added.

I'll tell you this, Rutgers joining the Big Ten (not just wishing, but word that it'll happen in the near future) has been in the works since before internet became a thing, literally after Penn State joined in 1990, there was already talk of ongoing discussions between Rutgers and the Big Ten.

(01-11-2018 09:00 AM)TerryD Wrote:  There was a "No" vote by the ND Board of Trustees on Big Ten membership in London in 1999. It wasn't "tabled". It was unanimously rejected.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-...ll-program


http://articles.latimes.com/1999/feb/06/sports/sp-5501

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/06/sports...g-ten.html

This is what I remember in regards to ND. Their rich Donors and Alumni will NEVER, repeat NEVER allow them to join the Big Ten.

IMHO, the Rutgers move had nothing to do with TV Sets, or even Maryland. It had everything to do with the Massive BIG Alumni base in that part of the Country and they happen to check every single box that the School Presidents wanted.

GT would have been on a Island, so they would have been out unless they had a travel partner.

Florida State? Stop the madness

North Carolina was not moving without Duke and maybe Virginia and they won't touch NC now.

Clemson is not a cultural fit, so there out.

IMHO the B1G is set for now and I only see two schools they might be interested in down the road: Missouri and Iowa State.....

(01-11-2018 09:23 AM)AntiG Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 05:22 PM)NJ2MDTerp Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 04:43 PM)mushroomgod Wrote:  

(01-04-2018 10:48 AM)johnbragg Wrote:  Georgia Tech cracks open the ACC in a way that Maryland didn't. (Especially if it's Maryland *AND* Georgia Tech.) That puts UNC and UVA (the real prizes for the Big Ten) in play.

Rutgers is the 2AM last resort after you strike out with the core ACC schools that would bring the BTN to the entire south Atlantic region.

The Big 10 had been talking about adding Rutgers on and off for 20 years. It's ignorant to suggest that they were a 2:00 am last resort.

I've read that the Big Ten had been grooming RU for Big Ten membership since the early 1990s as well but mostly from RU posters on this web site. Is there any evidence that attests to this claim?

Well its not like they are going to put out an official press release for a candidate that they gave a wink and nod to but not officially added.

I'll tell you this, Rutgers joining the Big Ten (not just wishing, but word that it'll happen in the near future) has been in the works since before internet became a thing, literally after Penn State joined in 1990, there was already talk of ongoing discussions between Rutgers and the Big Ten.

In all fairness to RU supporters, I recall hearing about the Big Ten/RU rumors from my NJ relatives well before conference realignment became a hot issue this decade. I didn't pay too mention attention because I thought the BE had a pretty decent football conference before the ACC began raiding it in 2004.

(01-11-2018 09:35 AM)lance99 Wrote:  GT would have been on a Island, so they would have been out unless they had a travel partner.

Florida State? Stop the madness

North Carolina was not moving without Duke and maybe Virginia and they won't touch NC now.

Clemson is not a cultural fit, so there out.

IMHO the B1G is set for now and I only see two schools they might be interested in down the road: Missouri and Iowa State.....

Missouri and Kansas maybe, but certainly not ISU.

(01-11-2018 09:35 AM)lance99 Wrote:  GT would have been on a Island, so they would have been out unless they had a travel partner.

Florida State? Stop the madness

North Carolina was not moving without Duke and maybe Virginia and they won't touch NC now.

Clemson is not a cultural fit, so there out.

IMHO the B1G is set for now and I only see two schools they might be interested in down the road: Missouri and Iowa State.....

From what I've heard they have a standing invite to Texas (who might come onboard) and ND (who is not coming) since the 1990s... Oklahoma has had talks as well.

Mizzou, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State could all potentially be add-ons if both Texas and Oklahoma were to join and wanted to carry them along, but certainly aren't top targets.

(01-11-2018 01:28 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 09:35 AM)lance99 Wrote:  GT would have been on a Island, so they would have been out unless they had a travel partner.

Florida State? Stop the madness

North Carolina was not moving without Duke and maybe Virginia and they won't touch NC now.

Clemson is not a cultural fit, so there out.

IMHO the B1G is set for now and I only see two schools they might be interested in down the road: Missouri and Iowa State.....

From what I've heard they have a standing invite to Texas (who might come onboard) and ND (who is not coming) since the 1990s... Oklahoma has had talks as well.

Mizzou, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State could all potentially be add-ons if both Texas and Oklahoma were to join and wanted to carry them along, but certainly aren't top targets.

The Big Ten will not take TT or OSU to get either UT or OU.

(01-11-2018 02:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:28 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 09:35 AM)lance99 Wrote:  GT would have been on a Island, so they would have been out unless they had a travel partner.

Florida State? Stop the madness

North Carolina was not moving without Duke and maybe Virginia and they won't touch NC now.

Clemson is not a cultural fit, so there out.

IMHO the B1G is set for now and I only see two schools they might be interested in down the road: Missouri and Iowa State.....

From what I've heard they have a standing invite to Texas (who might come onboard) and ND (who is not coming) since the 1990s... Oklahoma has had talks as well.

Mizzou, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State could all potentially be add-ons if both Texas and Oklahoma were to join and wanted to carry them along, but certainly aren't top targets.

The Big Ten will not take TT or OSU to get either UT or OU.

But PAC1X will.

(01-11-2018 02:37 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 02:28 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 01:28 PM)AntiG Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 09:35 AM)lance99 Wrote:  GT would have been on a Island, so they would have been out unless they had a travel partner.

Florida State? Stop the madness

North Carolina was not moving without Duke and maybe Virginia and they won't touch NC now.

Clemson is not a cultural fit, so there out.

IMHO the B1G is set for now and I only see two schools they might be interested in down the road: Missouri and Iowa State.....

From what I've heard they have a standing invite to Texas (who might come onboard) and ND (who is not coming) since the 1990s... Oklahoma has had talks as well.

Mizzou, Kansas, Iowa State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State could all potentially be add-ons if both Texas and Oklahoma were to join and wanted to carry them along, but certainly aren't top targets.

The Big Ten will not take TT or OSU to get either UT or OU.

But PAC1X will.

This is true.

(01-11-2018 01:28 PM)AntiG Wrote:  From what I've heard they have a standing invite to Texas (who might come onboard) and ND (who is not coming) since the 1990s...

Nebraska and Colorado were both approached ahead of the Big XII's formation. Both rebuffed at that time. Colorado, with Texas, had standing invites from the PAC-10. The Big Ten was aware of the complexity of the Big 8 relationships, and would have absorbed at least Missouri and Kansas if it came to that to get those two schools.

Obviously, after it looked like Missouri was close to just leaving for the Big Ten on its own 15 years later, Nebraska started making calls.

The "B1G-RFP" didn't flush out Maryland, or any of the other AAU ACC schools, either.

Delaney, if you keep him at his word, even said the UMD & RU additions were done as a result of the B1G-PAC rejection. So, if B1G-PAC went through...doors close and expansion is tabled? He didn't confirm it that far. Hard to fully believe if you have UMD interested, but, who knows.