The culture of the Big Ten has always been Midwestern/Great Lake centric. With this move Eastward is it going to agitate the Western schools and their fans? I understand making more money off of going East but I think going after schools like Kansas, Mizzou, and Nebraska should have been the direction we should have gone. What do you guys think about this? Could we eventually get to big and have a split between the West and East (Which would suck because I'd much rather play Wisconsin and Iowa than Rutgers and Maryland). Hell I'd preferred Kentucky and Vanderbilt but I don't think we dare touch the SEC unless it's Mizzou.

On the other hand, the leaders of the Big Ten look at the academic and "mission" profile of the school first and geography second.

Maryland and Rutgers fit very well in that respect, so there's a lot of cohesion there. I suppose the fans could draw East/West lines, but probably better in those directions than North/South(east).

Maryland fans seem to have come around (after taking a beating from the ACC) and Rutgers was solidly behind the move (as UConn would also be). So, all things considered, I don't think there's a problem brewing there.

I'd still really have been happy if we went with the Kansas and Mizzou route instead, but being in Michigan I'm right in the middle of either direction so no big problem for me.

The thing about going after Kansas or Mizzou is ... what would be the point?

The Big Ten went after Nebraska among the schools available to go to 12 and a CCG because Nebraska is a long time nationally recognized football "King". There was a bit of urgency to the move, since the move would go smoothest if the conference could grab them before it became widely known that they would be losing AAU status, but national brand recognition was an awfully big part of it.

The Big Ten went after Maryland quite explicitly for the market opportunity and demographics of the Mid-Atlantic, and long-available Rutgers came along as #14 for similar reasons. The academics, and the contiguity with the 1980s expansion of the Big Ten into Pennsylvania, were hurdles for the move to clear, not the primary drivers for wanting to make the move.

If the point of adding Kansas and Mizzou (back when Mizzou was available) was that they were the two schools most like the existing Big Ten schools in territory the most like the existing Big Ten territory ... that sounds to me like expanding for the sake of expansion, and if that's what is on the table, I'm fully in favor of the Big Ten taking just the one with the strongest national name, instead of all three.

Similar to the other grand Big Ten expansion to 16 or 18 scenarios ... at the moment, they seem to divide into three groups: (1) ones which might possibly offer more benefit than cost, and which seem to be infeasible at this point in time; (2) ones which we could do which don't offer enough to justify adding a pair of schools; and (3) ones which are both infeasible and not worth doing.

I think Big Ten people that still live in the Midwest think that the Big Ten culture is still only Midwest. It has grown, it is much much more than just Midwest.

Big Ten grads live all across the country and the progression of our culture in areas such as online social networking has caused the "Grid" to close in. Individual regional cultures are not as pronounced as they used to be. They still exist but when you talk about the culture of the Big Ten, it has become much more than simply "Midwest".

I very much prefer the conferences to have clear cultural boundaries and think the significance of that is vastly underplayed.

Think about how weird college sports are for a moment. How many people do you know that cheer hard for all National League Teams over American League teams? What about for AFC over NFC teams? This is fairly unique to college sports and is a good money maker for them. It means that fans of a school are much more likely to watch conference schools in games that otherwise don't involve them. That is huge for the TV numbers for even the lesser games.

The reasons for the conference loyalty in college sports is twofold in my opinion:

1. There are limited spots in the national championship race and perception of conferences matters.
2. Conferences have historically been associated with regions, so regional pride is important.

#1 losses importance with a bigger playoff, but I don't think 4 is enough to effect it too heavily.

#2 though is something conference should watch out for. I can say that personally I like cheering for Ohio and Midwestern teams. Cheering for the Big Ten felt like cheering for the Midwest. Some of that is lost now and honestly, so is my enthusiasm for the conference. If Maryland is playing Kansas, I guess I'll root for Maryland because it still will indirectly help Ohio State, but honestly, my instincts are still to root for the Midwestern school.

I don't think the conferences have quite gone far enough to lose their identities, but I think there is real risk here if they aren't careful. If you ever get that 16 playoff that people dream of with 4 conferences of 16, I'll guarantee you that conference pride will lose most of its luster (not immediately, but over a decade or so).

(05-15-2014 12:04 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I very much prefer the conferences to have clear cultural boundaries and think the significance of that is vastly underplayed.

Think about how weird college sports are for a moment. How many people do you know that cheer hard for all National League Teams over American League teams? What about for AFC over NFC teams? This is fairly unique to college sports and is a good money maker for them. It means that fans of a school are much more likely to watch conference schools in games that otherwise don't involve them. That is huge for the TV numbers for even the lesser games.

The reasons for the conference loyalty in college sports is twofold in my opinion:

1. There are limited spots in the national championship race and perception of conferences matters.
2. Conferences have historically been associated with regions, so regional pride is important.

#1 losses importance with a bigger playoff, but I don't think 4 is enough to effect it too heavily.

#2 though is something conference should watch out for. I can say that personally I like cheering for Ohio and Midwestern teams. Cheering for the Big Ten felt like cheering for the Midwest. Some of that is lost now and honestly, so is my enthusiasm for the conference. If Maryland is playing Kansas, I guess I'll root for Maryland because it still will indirectly help Ohio State, but honestly, my instincts are still to root for the Midwestern school.

I don't think the conferences have quite gone far enough to lose their identities, but I think there is real risk here if they aren't careful. If you ever get that 16 playoff that people dream of with 4 conferences of 16, I'll guarantee you that conference pride will lose most of its luster (not immediately, but over a decade or so).

I think there's truth to what you're saying. However, I think of the Big Ten not as a Midwestern conference but rather as the conference of the North. Traditionally, at least prior to the 90s it has been exclusively Midwestern, but once Penn State was admitted that had started to change.

I'm also a believer that many of the people bemoaning the loss of the Midwestern identity because of Maryland and Rutgers are really just speaking in a polite code that they aren't happy with those specific additions. There isn't that kind of talk about Penn State because they are a football heavyweight. I'm not saying that's the case with you.

I don't want to overstate things. I understand the conference of the north is what the Big Ten is becoming and it probably needs to in the current environment. The presidents basically said that they felt standing still was more risky than moving and I think they were correct in that belief.

To most Big Ten fans though, especially old time ones, it was the conference of the Midwest. The original common name for the conference before Big Ten was the Western Conference (at the time, with the Great Lakes area considered the Middle West vs. the Far West) and there are plaques at Ohio State from as late as the 60s I believe which label it as such (although "Big Ten" was also in use for much of that time). That identity didn't really die with Penn State, as to most they were a central PA team (which fairly similar to much of the Midwest), a bit out of the Midwest, but close enough to be an exception. That identity is clearly being altered now and there's no way around it. While some of the talk against expansion is simply a reaction to the perception of the teams (or at least to most Big Ten teams lack of tradition with them), I also heard a fair amount of "since when is Maryland/New Jersey in the Midwest." You heard similar things when Penn State came in I'm sure, but it's now impossible to ignore.

All of these moves have probably been smart for the conference (I agree standing still was a major risk), but there's more risk in these moves than I think a lot of them recognize. Regional pride is worth something and how the moves into multi-region conferences will effect their values is a very open question. I guess let's put it this way, I know people with Midwestern pride, I know a lot fewer with northern pride.

(05-15-2014 06:07 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  To most Big Ten fans though, especially old time ones, it was the conference of the Midwest.

Though as someone with relatives in Ohio and Michigan and all across the northern Great Plains, what Buckeyes and Michiganders understand as "Midwestern" is not actually the same "Midwestern" culture as what Iowans and South Dakotans understand as "Midwestern".

There is, for instance, quite a lot in common between the culture of Northeast Ohio and of Upstate New York, but Northeast Ohio is "Midwestern" by convention while upstate New York is "Northeastern". There are substantial reasons for a school of 100,000+ students halfway between Chicago and Philadelphia or halfway between Chicago and DC (because of the way the East Coast bends in between Philly and DC) to look in both directions, and TSUN maintains its 733T snobbish academic status at the graduate school level with a lot of recruiting of both faculty and Bachelor's graduates from top tier Northeastern Universities.

With the "Old Firm" of the Big Ten having substantial Eastern interests, and with the Great Lakes / Midwest no longer having the demographics to maintain a P5 conference all on its own, some kind of move East was probably inevitable.

As far as "Northern" pride, the seed for that is likely Southeastern football arrogance, founded on two of the top four and five of the top ten recruiting grounds located east of Texas and south of the Mason Dixon line.

(05-15-2014 06:07 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  I don't want to overstate things. I understand the conference of the north is what the Big Ten is becoming and it probably needs to in the current environment. The presidents basically said that they felt standing still was more risky than moving and I think they were correct in that belief.

To most Big Ten fans though, especially old time ones, it was the conference of the Midwest. The original common name for the conference before Big Ten was the Western Conference (at the time, with the Great Lakes area considered the Middle West vs. the Far West) and there are plaques at Ohio State from as late as the 60s I believe which label it as such (although "Big Ten" was also in use for much of that time). That identity didn't really die with Penn State, as to most they were a central PA team (which fairly similar to much of the Midwest), a bit out of the Midwest, but close enough to be an exception. That identity is clearly being altered now and there's no way around it. While some of the talk against expansion is simply a reaction to the perception of the teams (or at least to most Big Ten teams lack of tradition with them), I also heard a fair amount of "since when is Maryland/New Jersey in the Midwest." You heard similar things when Penn State came in I'm sure, but it's now impossible to ignore.

All of these moves have probably been smart for the conference (I agree standing still was a major risk), but there's more risk in these moves than I think a lot of them recognize. Regional pride is worth something and how the moves into multi-region conferences will effect their values is a very open question. I guess let's put it this way, I know people with Midwestern pride, I know a lot fewer with northern pride.

Very reasonable and understandable. And as I said I don't think you're one of the people who are just politely bashing the Maryland/Rutgers expansion.

Believe me when I say I (and plenty of others too) would love an (north)eastern conference with Pitt, BC, Cuse, UConn, Temple, Penn State, Rutgers, Maryland and WVU (historically speaking in college sports.) Plus let's throw in Miami and maybe even Tulane. When you think about where most of their students come from and/or go off to it makes sense.

I feel that time and success are important factors here as well ... for those of us who can lol remember the AFL-NFL merger back in 67 ... that felt about as weird as a pig flying ... seemed to work out ok ... unfortunately for some of us we may not have that time thing on our side ... I am def pumped for this and really believe the TERPS will mesh very quickly into the B1G culture ... Fear the Turtle!

An advantage of P5 realignment is that things tend to settle down for a decade or more after a flurry of realignment, so there'll be time for the additions to get used to the conference.

I see that both Maryland and Rugters already have some MAC schools on their future schedules, and Rutgers has some PAC-12 schools OOC, so that's starting to look more Big Tennish.

(05-22-2014 11:32 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  An advantage of P5 realignment is that things tend to settle down for a decade or more after a flurry of realignment, so there'll be time for the additions to get used to the conference.

I see that both Maryland and Rugters already have some MAC schools on their future schedules, and Rutgers has some PAC-12 schools OOC, so that's starting to look more Big Tennish.

The Pac-12 thing is definitely new for us, but I like that we're playing Wassou, UW and UCLA over the next several years. Playing MAC schools has been going on since at least the time I was an undergrad in the mid-2000s.

I think the "new" Big Ten culture will be more Northern than Mid-Western.

(05-16-2014 08:54 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-15-2014 06:07 PM)ohio1317 Wrote:  To most Big Ten fans though, especially old time ones, it was the conference of the Midwest.

Though as someone with relatives in Ohio and Michigan and all across the northern Great Plains, what Buckeyes and Michiganders understand as "Midwestern" is not actually the same "Midwestern" culture as what Iowans and South Dakotans understand as "Midwestern".

This is true. There's the upper Midwest and plains and then there's the Ohio and Michigan. All Midwestern, but different.

I like the relatively flat, corn belt and soy fields Midwest myself.

As time goes on I see myself identifying with the North more than I do with the East (or Northeast, going with the stereotypical NY-centric view).

1. The four-letter network has essentially made a bet that promoting southern and southeastern programs would be most beneficial to them, at the expense of long-time programs in northern schools.

2. Couple that with the divisions within the former Big East between private non-FB schools, private all-sports schools and public schools regardless of sports focus. That has left a very bitter taste in my mouth and a complete distrust of some former BE schools now in the Raycom Conference.

I also happen to have a negative opinion of Swofford and Slive, who also happen to be graduates of two schools known for its antebellum South elitism. Both, I think, hold some contempt for northern schools, except the former had to agree to ally with certain private schools in the mutual interest of destroying the competition in the East. B1G/Delany, in one move, foiled that hope, to my satisfaction.