Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
Author Message
WBalesed Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 2
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 0
I Root For: Wisconsin
Location:
Post: #1
Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
Missouri? Sorry if it's been brought up already (just curious). Their football program seemed to be on an upward trend when the B10 was expanding and I was actually pretty surprised that they never made a play for them- thought they would've added more not only in football but also market (only flagship D1 school in the state and more populous than Maryland).
01-11-2014 06:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


jaminandjachin Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,199
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 56
I Root For: UNC
Location:
Post: #2
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
At the time, the B1G didn't think they needed Missouri. So Missouri went to the SEC along with Texas A&M. The B1G didn't decide to act until the ACC took Pitt and Syracuse then made the deal with Notre Dame. That's when Delany decided to do something so they took Rutgers and Maryland.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 09:38 PM by jaminandjachin.)
01-11-2014 06:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,161
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 449
I Root For: Common Sense
Location: Nunnayadamnbusiness
Post: #3
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
I have never understood that league's apparent scatter shot expansion strategy. There just has never seemed to be a consistent overriding philosophy to it. Also, Delany seems to have frequently contradicted himself during the process, adding to my confusion.

I honestly believe that it has been more reactionary and defensive than many Big Ten fans are willing to admit.

In some instances academic reputation was going to play a big part in things and membership in the prestigious American Association of Universities (AAU) was an absolute must. Another major component according to the league's commish was going to be research dollars. Also, they were going to expand their cable reach as a matter of course. Then the Big Ten added Nebraska, which is not in the AAU, does almost no non-agricultural related research and has no Top 50 media markets, and all of that stuff went straight out the window.

Some folks, like me, questioned the choice of the Huskers based on Delany's stated criteria. It seemed at the time that Missouri, which is in the AAU, does a ton of research and has two top 35 markets, would have been a better fit. Also, unlike NU, MU has a legitimate existing rivalry with a current Big Ten school: Illinois.

Naturally, at that point, the legions of Big Ten apologists (and there are a great many of those on this board) rushed to Delany's defense and explained that quality match ups drive ratings, not television markets. "Look at the SEC and its lack of markets; and yet they still do gangbusters TV numbers," they explained.

The apologists reasoned that though Missouri met every single criteria better than Nebraska, including larger media markets, that was negated by the fact that the Tigers' program has been so inferior historically to the Cornhuskers.

I wasn't sure if I bought their explanation based on Delany's own stated goals but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on the fact that Nebraska has been so successful over the years that perhaps the rules were different in that particular instance.

Let's face it, money has never been an issue for the Big Ten, which is BY FAR the most lucrative conference in college football. They can adfford to leave a few sheckles on the table in the name of catching up to the SEC and some others. Honestly, at that point it made sense to me and seemed like a wise long term strategy.

Then they start to send out signals that they're going to expand again and this time it will likely be to the South because that's where the population is growing. Delany's apologists lauded the strategy as an opportunity for the B1G to tap into all of that vaunted "Southern speed" that everyone always talks about. Again, that made sense to me and seemed like a wise strategy on their part.

So when they finally got around to announcing Rutgers and Maryland as their expansion choices for spots Nos. 13 and 14, I was completely befuddled as it stood in stark contrast to all of their moves and most of their statements that led up to the respective additions of the Scarlet Knights and Terrapins.

Each program has mostly struggled over the years and each is in exactly the place where Delany himself said population was declining. Fortunately for Delany, his apologists are shameless and completely self unaware so they dutifully parroted his point about media markets adding X amount of dollars to their cable channel coffers and "money trumps all," they all rationalized.

However, my response to that has always been if money trumps all and this has always all been about adding to your cable footprint, then adding Nebraska over Missouri in the first place was a mistake. At that point they usually just shift the goalposts again and the entire convo just shuts down.

Personally, I like their original strategy better than their fallback strategy. I think adding NEB over MIZZ was the correct choice given each program's history of success and following. I just think their second expansion should have continued with that theory of adding quality programs to allow them to keep pace with the SEC on the field. That's why I think they should have added Florida State and Georgia Tech after North Carolina and Virginia rejected them. Instead, they then went for the cash grab option but in doing so they added two historically weak programs which only serves to widen the competitive gulf between the B1G and its rival leagues. Sure they'll be richer than everyone else by a mile but they already held that perch. And by adding those two schools that means fewer opps for TV to show games featuring Ohio State vs. Wisconsin or Penn State vs. Nebraska as those slots are now eaten up by Rutgers and Maryland.

I think they panicked when the ACC added Notre Dame and I also think they made some BIG TIME blunders in their approach. Only time will tell if I'm right but I'm pretty confident on this one. Had they taken Florida State and Georgia Tech, the ACC would have been dead as a door nail which would have meant more money in the long term for the other four power leagues.

By instead taking arguably one of the league's most expendable schools in Maryland and an AAC school (Rutgers) they spared the ACC and I believe they will most likely live to regret that potentially ENORMOUS mistake.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 09:42 PM by Dr. Isaly von Yinzer.)
01-11-2014 09:36 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #4
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
I think some folks try too hard.
01-11-2014 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jaminandjachin Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,199
Joined: Jan 2013
Reputation: 56
I Root For: UNC
Location:
Post: #5
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
I still to this day believe Maryland was the only team leaving the ACC to go to the B1G. The only conference even remotely capable of shaking a few ACC teams loose is the SEC, and that's really only FSU and Clemson.
01-11-2014 09:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Wedge Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 19,862
Joined: May 2010
Reputation: 964
I Root For: California
Location: IV, V, VI, IX
Post: #6
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 06:31 PM)WBalesed Wrote:  Missouri?

1) Ohio St's president and AD said they considered inviting Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, but they ultimately decided to invite only Nebraska at that time. My guess is that the Big Ten presidents decided they didn't want to be seen as the possible destroyers of another league, so they decided to add only one Big 12 team and decided Nebraska was the best addition.

2) I agree that the Maryland/Rutgers addition was a reaction to the ACC additions, and to the SEC expansion to 14 schools, and Delany thinking that the Big Ten should push back against the ACC by taking a bigger bite out of the east coast.
01-11-2014 09:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


He1nousOne Offline
The One you Love to Hate.
*

Posts: 13,285
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 215
I Root For: Iowa/ASU
Location: Arizona
Post: #7
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 09:45 PM)Wedge Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 06:31 PM)WBalesed Wrote:  Missouri?

1) Ohio St's president and AD said they considered inviting Nebraska, Missouri, and Kansas, but they ultimately decided to invite only Nebraska at that time. My guess is that the Big Ten presidents decided they didn't want to be seen as the possible destroyers of another league, so they decided to add only one Big 12 team and decided Nebraska was the best addition.

2) I agree that the Maryland/Rutgers addition was a reaction to the ACC additions, and to the SEC expansion to 14 schools, and Delany thinking that the Big Ten should push back against the ACC by taking a bigger bite out of the east coast.

I am sure that Delany probably knew and continues to know much, much, much more than all of us. I am sure he probably knew that the ACC was looking around and seeking to shore up the entire Eastern seaboard for themselves.

The Big Ten got into the Beltway and it got into Jersey. They did it with two well respected AAU State Universities that are research institutions. Why folks try so damn hard to make these look like crazy moves for The Big Ten, it is beyond me. Some folks just have it in their heads to make up as much negativity about the Big Ten as possible. 07-coffee3
01-11-2014 09:49 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SeaBlue Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,190
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Michigan
Location: Indy
Post: #8
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
Rule #1 seems to be:

- If you would like an invite, don't have your governor publically solicit said invite (as Missouri's did).

I think Delany's bosses back on campus were extremely uncomfortable with the situation.

Delany did acknowledge that going public with the intention to add a new member was a mistake on his/B1G's part.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 10:13 PM by SeaBlue.)
01-11-2014 10:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #9
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 09:36 PM)Dr. Isaly von Yinzer Wrote:  I have never understood that league's apparent scatter shot expansion strategy. There just has never seemed to be a consistent overriding philosophy to it. Also, Delany seems to have frequently contradicted himself during the process, adding to my confusion.

I honestly believe that it has been more reactionary and defensive than many Big Ten fans are willing to admit.

In some instances academic reputation was going to play a big part in things and membership in the prestigious American Association of Universities (AAU) was an absolute must. Another major component according to the league's commish was going to be research dollars. Also, they were going to expand their cable reach as a matter of course. Then the Big Ten added Nebraska, which is not in the AAU, does almost no non-agricultural related research and has no Top 50 media markets, and all of that stuff went straight out the window.

Some folks, like me, questioned the choice of the Huskers based on Delany's stated criteria. It seemed at the time that Missouri, which is in the AAU, does a ton of research and has two top 35 markets, would have been a better fit. Also, unlike NU, MU has a legitimate existing rivalry with a current Big Ten school: Illinois.

Naturally, at that point, the legions of Big Ten apologists (and there are a great many of those on this board) rushed to Delany's defense and explained that quality match ups drive ratings, not television markets. "Look at the SEC and its lack of markets; and yet they still do gangbusters TV numbers," they explained.

The apologists reasoned that though Missouri met every single criteria better than Nebraska, including larger media markets, that was negated by the fact that the Tigers' program has been so inferior historically to the Cornhuskers.

I wasn't sure if I bought their explanation based on Delany's own stated goals but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt based on the fact that Nebraska has been so successful over the years that perhaps the rules were different in that particular instance.

Let's face it, money has never been an issue for the Big Ten, which is BY FAR the most lucrative conference in college football. They can adfford to leave a few sheckles on the table in the name of catching up to the SEC and some others. Honestly, at that point it made sense to me and seemed like a wise long term strategy.

Then they start to send out signals that they're going to expand again and this time it will likely be to the South because that's where the population is growing. Delany's apologists lauded the strategy as an opportunity for the B1G to tap into all of that vaunted "Southern speed" that everyone always talks about. Again, that made sense to me and seemed like a wise strategy on their part.

So when they finally got around to announcing Rutgers and Maryland as their expansion choices for spots Nos. 13 and 14, I was completely befuddled as it stood in stark contrast to all of their moves and most of their statements that led up to the respective additions of the Scarlet Knights and Terrapins.

Each program has mostly struggled over the years and each is in exactly the place where Delany himself said population was declining. Fortunately for Delany, his apologists are shameless and completely self unaware so they dutifully parroted his point about media markets adding X amount of dollars to their cable channel coffers and "money trumps all," they all rationalized.

However, my response to that has always been if money trumps all and this has always all been about adding to your cable footprint, then adding Nebraska over Missouri in the first place was a mistake. At that point they usually just shift the goalposts again and the entire convo just shuts down.

Personally, I like their original strategy better than their fallback strategy. I think adding NEB over MIZZ was the correct choice given each program's history of success and following. I just think their second expansion should have continued with that theory of adding quality programs to allow them to keep pace with the SEC on the field. That's why I think they should have added Florida State and Georgia Tech after North Carolina and Virginia rejected them. Instead, they then went for the cash grab option but in doing so they added two historically weak programs which only serves to widen the competitive gulf between the B1G and its rival leagues. Sure they'll be richer than everyone else by a mile but they already held that perch. And by adding those two schools that means fewer opps for TV to show games featuring Ohio State vs. Wisconsin or Penn State vs. Nebraska as those slots are now eaten up by Rutgers and Maryland.

I think they panicked when the ACC added Notre Dame and I also think they made some BIG TIME blunders in their approach. Only time will tell if I'm right but I'm pretty confident on this one. Had they taken Florida State and Georgia Tech, the ACC would have been dead as a door nail which would have meant more money in the long term for the other four power leagues.

By instead taking arguably one of the league's most expendable schools in Maryland and an AAC school (Rutgers) they spared the ACC and I believe they will most likely live to regret that potentially ENORMOUS mistake.

They also claimed that they thought that Missouri would be there for them later. Alright, I can believe that miscalculation. Some of them claim that F.S.U. wasn't universally accepted and I can believe that. Some of them claim that Florida State might have used them to get an SEC invitation and I can believe that too. But to stop there is to miss your point Doc. Whether F.S.U. had gone Big 10 or used their interest to prompt a defensive move by the SEC the result would have been the same. It would have ended the ACC. Besides, there were economic reasons for Georgia Tech to have said yes, and I'm sure Miami would have been friendly to the prospect of Big 10 membership and although not AAU they are well respected, certainly as well as F.S.U..

I think you are right about this. They simply picked on the weakest ACC link which surprise turns out to be a weak product as well. I think they took Rutgers because they were worried that if Swafford beat them to it they would be locked out of the New England market. So your point was that the move was reactionary and I agree.

If they had gotten a second ACC target with Maryland, like Georgia Tech, the damage would still have been done because Slive might have broken with his strategy of leaving the ACC alone. Virginia Tech and Florida State would have been massive blows if Georgia Tech and Maryland were both on their way to the Big 10 as it would have created an every man for himself panic. In fact it took a monumental fail to screw up by not taking another panicky or needy ACC school. Taking the Yellow Jackets, as it did with the Terrapins, would have broken the continuity of the ACC footprint into 3 pieces. That alone would have levied a strong enough psychological and tactical blow to bring about a panic in which Delany could have fulfilled his boast and nabbed perhaps the entire research triangle with Virginia to boot, and Georgia Tech could have become the Southern recruiting base he promised. Then the acclaim he receives would have been merited.

As it currently stands it looks like this:
SEC adds Texas A&M and Missouri two new states, two academic adds, and by consensus it was viewed as a win win.

ACC adds Pittsburgh and Syracuse two new states, two strong markets, one marquee basketball program, two solid academic additions, and catches the Big 10 napping the same way the SEC did with Missouri. Then Ahab loses his white whale (Notre Dame) to membership with the ACC in everything but football. Three wins for the ACC.

The Big 10 adds Rutgers and financially strapped Maryland in a backroom deal which still leaves alumni scratching their heads and some of them wringing their hands and they call it a home run for markets.

So my question is when considering the additions of teams for those three conferences who is it that seems to have landed the best package. It could be reasonably argued between the SEC and ACC as to which delivered the most impact to their respective new homes, but I don't think the average fan on the street, even in the Big 10, would claim that they excelled with their choices.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 10:24 PM by JRsec.)
01-11-2014 10:20 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Kaplony Offline
Palmetto State Deplorable

Posts: 25,393
Joined: Apr 2013
I Root For: Newberry
Location: SC
Post: #10
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
IMO they Missouri was right there with Nebraska back then, but there was no clear cut #14. The B1G took the calculated risk that Missouri would still be available when a viable option for #14 presented itself and the risk didn't pay off. At the time Missouri was on nobody else's expansion radar as at the time nobody else was ready to make a move. When it became obvious that Missouri was the target for SEC #14 it was too far along in the process for the B1G to do anything to stop it because at the time there still wasn't a viable #14.
01-11-2014 10:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AntiG Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,396
Joined: Dec 2012
Reputation: 40
I Root For: Rutgers
Location: NYC
Post: #11
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
they were certainly considered but the B1G wanted to expand to the biggest markets first after deciding to add Nebraska. Rutgers had been in consideration going back to the early 2000s, but at the time the conference was not interested in expanding further, unless it was bringing them alongside Notre Dame (who rejected them basically every year). They eventually gave up on chasing their white whale, and took a more practical route after Maryland's president (a former B1G school administrator) and finally gave Rutgers the call they'd been waiting for for years.

One of the plans rumored for the B1G was to expand to 20, with Mizzou, Kansas, UNC, UVA, Texas, Oklahoma, FSU, GTech and Duke all considered.
01-11-2014 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #12
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
Again, people fail to realize how truly little history Missouri has in football. Maryland has a better history than Missouri. Of course that means nothing for the future but, in my opinion, you can't dump on Maryland without dumping on Missouri.
01-11-2014 10:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #13
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 10:51 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Again, people fail to realize how truly little history Missouri has in football. Maryland has a better history than Missouri. Of course that means nothing for the future but, in my opinion, you can't dump on Maryland without dumping on Missouri.

To say one was a better strategical move than the other is not dumping. To say that one had larger markets than the other is not dumping. To say that one was a better geographical and cultural fit than the other is not dumping. But in recent history Mizzou has the advantage of having been far more prominent in a few sports than Maryland. And just for the record nobody was disparaging the Scarlet Knights either. I think they will develop just fine. The issue was whether what Delany did matched his talk and then to say that the impact of the ACC and SEC additions was much more substantial than the additions of Maryland and Rutgers.
01-11-2014 11:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SeaBlue Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,190
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Michigan
Location: Indy
Post: #14
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ... and catches the Big 10 napping the same way the SEC did with Missouri. Then Ahab loses his white whale (Notre Dame) to membership with the ACC in everything but football. Three wins for the ACC.
Why oh why must "Delany was sleeping at the wheel" get thrown in these conversations as if there is a police report (hard evidence) somewhere that says so? Perhaps in 5 years we can buy Jimmy or Slive a few drinks and someone can explain to us what went down.

Until then, my thinking is that any school planting an "available" sign in their front yard is not getting an invite to the Big Ten. So, scratch FSU and Missouri. And scratch Notre Dame for only putting one foot in.

And if Missouri had a non-disclosure in place with the Big Ten, that really could have made both sides rather uncomfortable when the Gov. started politicking for the cause.

So, who does that leave? Damn good question actually. By my own reasoning, take Oklahoma off the list as well.

Maryland and Rutgers are nice adds to the family. Only with current on-field sports-only goggles does the decision not make sense. When #15 and #16 come along I get a feeling that #13 and #14 will make more sense to all. Let's hope so anyway.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2014 11:16 PM by SeaBlue.)
01-11-2014 11:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #15
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 11:12 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 10:20 PM)JRsec Wrote:  ... and catches the Big 10 napping the same way the SEC did with Missouri. Then Ahab loses his white whale (Notre Dame) to membership with the ACC in everything but football. Three wins for the ACC.
Why oh why must "Delany was sleeping at the wheel" get thrown in these conversations as if there is a police report (hard evidence) somewhere that says so? Perhaps in 5 years we can buy Jimmy or Slive a few drinks and someone can explain to us what went down.

Until then, my thinking is that any school planting an "available" sign in their front yard is not getting an invite to the Big Ten. So, scratch FSU and Missouri. And scratch Notre Dame for only putting one foot in.

And if Missouri had a non-disclosure in place with the Big Ten, that really could have made both sides rather uncomfortable when the Gov. started politicking for the cause.

So, who does that leave? Damn good question actually. By my own reasoning, take Oklahoma off the list as well.

Maryland and Rutgers are nice adds to the family. Only with on-field sports-only goggles does the decision not make sense. When #15 and #16 come along I get a feeling that #13 and #14 will make more sense. Let's hope so anyway.

Are you telling me that Rutgers and Maryland played hard to get? And by implication are you telling us to expect Connecticut and Buffalo to join soon?
01-11-2014 11:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #16
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 10:51 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Again, people fail to realize how truly little history Missouri has in football. Maryland has a better history than Missouri. Of course that means nothing for the future but, in my opinion, you can't dump on Maryland without dumping on Missouri.

To say one was a better strategical move than the other is not dumping. To say that one had larger markets than the other is not dumping. To say that one was a better geographical and cultural fit than the other is not dumping. But in recent history Mizzou has the advantage of having been far more prominent in a few sports than Maryland. And just for the record nobody was disparaging the Scarlet Knights either. I think they will develop just fine. The issue was whether what Delany did matched his talk and then to say that the impact of the ACC and SEC additions was much more substantial than the additions of Maryland and Rutgers.

This thread isn't dumping on Maryland (yet) but nearly every other thread brings up how awful Maryland has been recently while ignoring facts like Missouri's last football conference championship was less than a decade after WWII ended. Maryland is in a rough cycle right now but they could be turning a corner. They had a bad two year stretch and are looking to be on the upswing and have a little momentum coming into the Big Ten. I don't think Missouri is disappointed in the SEC even if the Big Ten appeared to be their first choice. Missouri is happy, Maryland is happy, the Big Ten and SEC are happy. The only ones upset seem to be fans who want to get into stupid shouting matches of, "My conference is better than your conference."
01-11-2014 11:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #17
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 11:45 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(01-11-2014 10:51 PM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Again, people fail to realize how truly little history Missouri has in football. Maryland has a better history than Missouri. Of course that means nothing for the future but, in my opinion, you can't dump on Maryland without dumping on Missouri.

To say one was a better strategical move than the other is not dumping. To say that one had larger markets than the other is not dumping. To say that one was a better geographical and cultural fit than the other is not dumping. But in recent history Mizzou has the advantage of having been far more prominent in a few sports than Maryland. And just for the record nobody was disparaging the Scarlet Knights either. I think they will develop just fine. The issue was whether what Delany did matched his talk and then to say that the impact of the ACC and SEC additions was much more substantial than the additions of Maryland and Rutgers.

This thread isn't dumping on Maryland (yet) but nearly every other thread brings up how awful Maryland has been recently while ignoring facts like Missouri's last football conference championship was less than a decade after WWII ended. Maryland is in a rough cycle right now but they could be turning a corner. They had a bad two year stretch and are looking to be on the upswing and have a little momentum coming into the Big Ten. I don't think Missouri is disappointed in the SEC even if the Big Ten appeared to be their first choice. Missouri is happy, Maryland is happy, the Big Ten and SEC are happy. The only ones upset seem to be fans who want to get into stupid shouting matches of, "My conference is better than your conference."

Nobody around here is shouting anything, having a bit of fun with folks we post with regularly maybe, but certainly not shouting. And Doc raised a good point with which I agreed. And as for the SEC, I don't have to proclaim anything. The truth is there were grandiose plans verbalized by the Big 10. Most of this comes out of not coming close to realizing some of those plans. And, because it is the off season now and their isn't much to talk about until the NCAA conference is over in a couple of weeks.
01-12-2014 12:01 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
SeaBlue Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,190
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation: 43
I Root For: Michigan
Location: Indy
Post: #18
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 11:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Are you telling me that Rutgers and Maryland played hard to get? And by implication are you telling us to expect Connecticut and Buffalo to join soon?
Huskies are sneaky quiet. Buffalo, not so much,
01-12-2014 12:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #19
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
(01-11-2014 10:23 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  IMO they Missouri was right there with Nebraska back then, but there was no clear cut #14. The B1G took the calculated risk that Missouri would still be available when a viable option for #14 presented itself and the risk didn't pay off. At the time Missouri was on nobody else's expansion radar as at the time nobody else was ready to make a move. When it became obvious that Missouri was the target for SEC #14 it was too far along in the process for the B1G to do anything to stop it because at the time there still wasn't a viable #14.

I am still laughing my butt off about their miscalculations too. Don't take care of the lady and she will always find someone else. We found Mr SEC...
01-12-2014 12:28 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CardinalJim Offline
Welcome to The New Age
*

Posts: 16,476
Joined: Apr 2004
Reputation: 2968
I Root For: Louisville
Location: Staffordsville, KY
Post: #20
RE: Anyone else ever wonder why the Big Ten never added...
The idea that FSU wants to join The SEC is a product of WVU bloggers wet dreams. In 1991 FSU had the opportunity to join The SEC and turned it down. Instead FSU joined The ACC. Bobby Bowden once said it was like "having to choose from between caviar and ribs." On the Tim Brando on Thursday Bobby said: The reason FSU joined The ACC was it was an "easier path to the National Title."

Carry on with your outlandish theories why this happened or didn't. Mulder and Scully will be along shortly to investigate.
CJ
01-12-2014 05:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.