(09-20-2018 09:26 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 01:14 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-20-2018 12:05 AM)NIUSox10 Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 11:27 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-17-2018 07:51 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  It's not a bad idea to try and expand their presence in Chicago, the problem is the (1) they're bad like you say, and (2) USF isn't a program that'll generate excitement even if they are one of the best G5 programs. If Illinois was coming off an eight-win year and played another P5 then it might work out, otherwise the timing is very flawed.

Also one has to consider that Illinois is second in the nation in 'exported' college students - something like 41% of high school grads who go to college end up out of state, and that means loyalties to Wisconsin, IU, Michigan, etc. Plus when you factor in transplants and entrenched loyalties to Notre Dame, U of I really doesn't capture Chicago on a proportional level like Mizzou does in St. Louis for example.

Part of that is simply due to the size of Chicago. Chicagoland is bigger than Iowa and Missouri combined.

Illinois is undoubtedly the #1 college team in Chicago. But like any pro town, it's hard for a college team to get press unless it's a winner.

Chicago would bandwagon any Illinois team, kind of like what they did for NIU in the orange bowl or Loyola in the mens ncaa tourney. Otherwise its a mish mash of fandom. Kids go to school outside the state and bring it back with them, or other states ship their grads to Chicago for good paying jobs. There are 10x more Wiscy/Iowa/Mizzou/OSU/ND/IU etc bars than Illinois bars in Chicago. I dont think Chicago cares about the Illini except their own alums, unless they are winning.

We’ll have to wait for Illinois to win in order to test that hypothesis.

You don't have to go that far back. They went to the Rose Bowl in 2008 and won the Big 10 outright in 2001.

In 2005, Illinois basketball went 37-2, with their only losses coming on the last day of the regular season and the national championship game.

I wasn't in Chicago in the early 00s - how big of a deal was this?

I don't recall there being a huge ground swell of support for Illinois sports in Chicago (and the burbs) when they were winning. Some bandwagon jumpers and fair-weather fans, but that soon ended.

NW got some support because they were SO BAD for SO LONG when they first started winning but other than that.....

I think Chicago is a Pro Sports city that has fans for most B1G teams, plus ND, and the occasional Cinderella like Loyola..

I was at a Cubs/Brewers game about 15 years ago at Wrigley and had my Wisconsin hat on. Got many thumbs up and Go Badgers shouts.

(09-20-2018 11:43 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 09:24 PM)seaking4steel Wrote:  

(09-19-2018 08:38 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-16-2018 01:33 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think the Big 10 grab the wrong New York market team. AAU Buffalo is 3-0 while Rutgers is 1-2.

Because Eastern Michigan, Delaware State, and Temple is such a hard schedule.

They wanted New York CITY, not the state of New York. No one gives a rat's @$$ about Buffalo when it comes to market size (no offense to anyone from Buffalo; I hear it's a lovely place to start a family). NYC is #1 in TV; Buffalo is #51 sandwiched between Louisville and Providence. You could make the argument that they picked the wrong school with a red color scheme (Louisville instead of Rutgers, if academics are removed from the equation), but c'mon... Buffalo?

Louisville? Talk about an outlier with nothing in common with the rest of the schools or alumni bases.

Saturdays must be real exciting for you.

Rutgers. Cough cough

(09-22-2018 02:06 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Rutgers. Cough cough

At least Rutgers is an academic peer of Big Ten institutions. Let’s be honest, Rutgers football and basketball are not the reason why they’re in the Big Ten. Except for one season (2006), they are what they have always been. It was a power grab by Delaney to get more subscribers in NJ/NY and to block the ACC from New York and Washington. That’s it. I’m sure more was expected of Maryland than Rutgers.

(09-22-2018 02:43 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:06 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Rutgers. Cough cough

At least Rutgers is an academic peer of Big Ten institutions. Let’s be honest, Rutgers football and basketball are not the reason why they’re in the Big Ten. Except for one season (2006), they are what they have always been. It was a power grab by Delaney to get more subscribers in NJ/NY and to block the ACC from New York and Washington. That’s it. I’m sure more was expected of Maryland than Rutgers.

Ouch

Let's go Buuuuuuuullllllllllllllllls.

(09-22-2018 02:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:43 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:06 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Rutgers. Cough cough

At least Rutgers is an academic peer of Big Ten institutions. Let’s be honest, Rutgers football and basketball are not the reason why they’re in the Big Ten. Except for one season (2006), they are what they have always been. It was a power grab by Delaney to get more subscribers in NJ/NY and to block the ACC from New York and Washington. That’s it. I’m sure more was expected of Maryland than Rutgers.

Ouch

Hey, it's true.

Besides, Gordon Gee already said that Rutgers and Maryland weren't added for their sports. They were added to keep Penn State from having wandering eyes.

Sure, Penn State's 2010 administration was happy in the Big 10. But administrations change. The ACC with Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Maryland, and half of Notre Dame might have been awfully attractive to Penn State at some point.

Nebraska is running on the old fumes of being a national brand. The gas tank is about empty. I am 64 years old today and I have never seen them this pitiful. Texas A&M hurt Nebraska as well. Texas high school talent can now stay in Texas and play in the sunny SEC. As Nebraska continues to deteriorate, Texas kids will be even less inclined to sign up for a four year stay in Lincoln. If I was Oklahoma, I would run from a B1G invite. Their fate might be the same.

(09-22-2018 08:18 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Nebraska is running on the old fumes of being a national brand. The gas tank is about empty. I am 64 years old today and I have never seen them this pitiful. Texas A&M hurt Nebraska as well. Texas high school talent can now stay in Texas and play in the sunny SEC. As Nebraska continues to deteriorate, Texas kids will be even less inclined to sign up for a four year stay in Lincoln. If I was Oklahoma, I would run from a B1G invite. Their fate might be the same.

A&M isn't exactly lighting the world on fire, either. Jobbing to the Alabama schools and LSU on the yearly won't inspire those Texas kids to stay in Texas, either. I'd advise A&M to view Nebraska as a cautionary tale and try to avoid the culture of complacency and zero-accountability that killed football in Lincoln. Some day you'll get a bad batch of kids more interested in playing for the SEC and in the NFL than playing football, and those games A&M schedules against the likes of UTSA and Prairie View will be a lot closer than they were in years past.

David, I apologize. The B1G took the wrong school.

(09-22-2018 04:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:43 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:06 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Rutgers. Cough cough

At least Rutgers is an academic peer of Big Ten institutions. Let’s be honest, Rutgers football and basketball are not the reason why they’re in the Big Ten. Except for one season (2006), they are what they have always been. It was a power grab by Delaney to get more subscribers in NJ/NY and to block the ACC from New York and Washington. That’s it. I’m sure more was expected of Maryland than Rutgers.

Ouch

Hey, it's true.

Besides, Gordon Gee already said that Rutgers and Maryland weren't added for their sports. They were added to keep Penn State from having wandering eyes.

Sure, Penn State's 2010 administration was happy in the Big 10. But administrations change. The ACC with Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Maryland, and half of Notre Dame might have been awfully attractive to Penn State at some point.

The allure of ACC is from Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and Louisville. As more population heading south, Penn State may want to join a conference stretching to the South and recruit there to stay competitive in the future.

(09-22-2018 10:15 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 04:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:43 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:06 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Rutgers. Cough cough

At least Rutgers is an academic peer of Big Ten institutions. Let’s be honest, Rutgers football and basketball are not the reason why they’re in the Big Ten. Except for one season (2006), they are what they have always been. It was a power grab by Delaney to get more subscribers in NJ/NY and to block the ACC from New York and Washington. That’s it. I’m sure more was expected of Maryland than Rutgers.

Ouch

Hey, it's true.

Besides, Gordon Gee already said that Rutgers and Maryland weren't added for their sports. They were added to keep Penn State from having wandering eyes.

Sure, Penn State's 2010 administration was happy in the Big 10. But administrations change. The ACC with Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Maryland, and half of Notre Dame might have been awfully attractive to Penn State at some point.

The allure of ACC is from Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and Louisville. As more population heading south, Penn State may want to join a conference stretching to the South and recruit there to stay competitive in the future.

If you’re ranking ACC schools that would attract Penn State’s interest, Louisville is near the bottom. Not much common ground and Louisville is more a BB-first school who isn’t in a priority pipeline state.

(09-22-2018 10:25 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 10:15 PM)ArQ Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 04:58 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:58 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  

(09-22-2018 02:43 PM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  At least Rutgers is an academic peer of Big Ten institutions. Let’s be honest, Rutgers football and basketball are not the reason why they’re in the Big Ten. Except for one season (2006), they are what they have always been. It was a power grab by Delaney to get more subscribers in NJ/NY and to block the ACC from New York and Washington. That’s it. I’m sure more was expected of Maryland than Rutgers.

Ouch

Hey, it's true.

Besides, Gordon Gee already said that Rutgers and Maryland weren't added for their sports. They were added to keep Penn State from having wandering eyes.

Sure, Penn State's 2010 administration was happy in the Big 10. But administrations change. The ACC with Pitt, Syracuse, BC, Maryland, and half of Notre Dame might have been awfully attractive to Penn State at some point.

The allure of ACC is from Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami and Louisville. As more population heading south, Penn State may want to join a conference stretching to the South and recruit there to stay competitive in the future.

If you’re ranking ACC schools that would attract Penn State’s interest, Louisville is near the bottom. Not much common ground and Louisville is more a BB-first school who isn’t in a priority pipeline state.

I don’t think Penn State will trade Ohio State, Michigan and Michigan State for anything the ACC has to offer. Yes, they play Rutgers, Maryland and Indiana as well but it’s no different than playing Pitt, Syracuse and Boston College. Penn State in the ACC is like a very big fish in a small pond. They don’t fit in any angle.

Penn State is a northeast and east coast school. Now that Maryland and Rutgers are in the Big Ten, Penn State has conference games where they recruit students and athletes. The Big Ten has much better brands than the ACC which gets the conference more money. The ACC should have made more of an effort back in the 70s and 80s. That could have been the difference.

The BTN recently got dropped in NYC. There's been some talk about possibly dropping the BTN in NJ as well.

I have to say that if the Big East doesn't regret the Rutgers selection, they are idiots. Inviting Rutgers has not helped Big Ten revenue in the least.

(09-23-2018 06:40 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Penn State is a northeast and east coast school. Now that Maryland and Rutgers are in the Big Ten, Penn State has conference games where they recruit students and athletes. The Big Ten has much better brands than the ACC which gets the conference more money. The ACC should have made more of an effort back in the 70s and 80s. That could have been the difference.

Why would you invite Maryland and Rutgers to benefit just one conference member?
Especially a conference member that was just coming off the Sandusky scandal?

The only people who think that Maryland and Rutgers were good invites are Big Ten fans who feel the need to mindlessly defend what their conference does. Especially now that Comcast has dropped BTN in NYC and might drop it in NJ. The Big Ten was never able to get the BTN in Washington DC like they briefly were in NYC.

Yeah and Big 10 recruiting hasn't helped Rutgers on the football field either.

The only person (other than Rutgers fans) who should think the Big 10's invite of Rutgers was a good idea is Lovie Smith, since having a winnable conference game like Rutgers on his schedule every year might help him keep his job for longer.

(09-23-2018 09:21 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 06:40 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Penn State is a northeast and east coast school. Now that Maryland and Rutgers are in the Big Ten, Penn State has conference games where they recruit students and athletes. The Big Ten has much better brands than the ACC which gets the conference more money. The ACC should have made more of an effort back in the 70s and 80s. That could have been the difference.

Why would you invite Maryland and Rutgers to benefit just one conference member?
Especially a conference member that was just coming off the Sandusky scandal?

The only people who think that Maryland and Rutgers were good invites are Big Ten fans who feel the need to mindlessly defend what their conference does. Especially now that Comcast has dropped BTN in NYC and might drop it in NJ. The Big Ten was never able to get the BTN in Washington DC like they briefly were in NYC.

Yeah and Big 10 recruiting hasn't helped Rutgers on the football field either.

The only person (other than Rutgers fans) who should think the Big 10's invite of Rutgers was a good idea is Lovie Smith, since having a winnable conference game like Rutgers on his schedule every year might help him keep his job for longer.

Seems like since inviting Maryland and Rutgers, the B1G has been more prosperous than ever. They now make more money than the SEC.

What am i missing here?

(09-23-2018 08:56 AM)Poster Wrote:  The BTN recently got dropped in NYC. There's been some talk about possibly dropping the BTN in NJ as well.

Not true.

(09-23-2018 11:00 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 09:21 AM)Poster Wrote:  

(09-23-2018 06:40 AM)GE and MTS Wrote:  Penn State is a northeast and east coast school. Now that Maryland and Rutgers are in the Big Ten, Penn State has conference games where they recruit students and athletes. The Big Ten has much better brands than the ACC which gets the conference more money. The ACC should have made more of an effort back in the 70s and 80s. That could have been the difference.

Why would you invite Maryland and Rutgers to benefit just one conference member?
Especially a conference member that was just coming off the Sandusky scandal?

The only people who think that Maryland and Rutgers were good invites are Big Ten fans who feel the need to mindlessly defend what their conference does. Especially now that Comcast has dropped BTN in NYC and might drop it in NJ. The Big Ten was never able to get the BTN in Washington DC like they briefly were in NYC.

Yeah and Big 10 recruiting hasn't helped Rutgers on the football field either.

The only person (other than Rutgers fans) who should think the Big 10's invite of Rutgers was a good idea is Lovie Smith, since having a winnable conference game like Rutgers on his schedule every year might help him keep his job for longer.

Seems like since inviting Maryland and Rutgers, the B1G has been more prosperous than ever. They now make more money than the SEC.

What am i missing here?

Lol at believing that Rutgers and Maryland have anything to do with the Big 10's prosperity. Honestly I think those schools take more money from the Big 10 than they actually bring in. Especially with the increased travel costs for non revenue sports.

Six years ago, Big Ten fans were talking about how they'd deliver the D.C. and NYC tv markets. And, as it has turned out, the BTN is not on the basic package in either D.C. or NYC. Clearly they're not helping the Big 10 with the markets they were supposed to help with.