JRsec
Super Moderator
Posts: 37,886
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
|
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.)
|
|