(08-15-2013 09:48 AM)Lou_C Wrote: (08-15-2013 09:00 AM)orangefan Wrote: These incredible financial problems have to have interfered with UMD's ability to compete on the field. For the ACC to raise its game to match the SEC's, or whoever, we have to have equivalent resources available for coaching salaries, recruiting, etc. Replacing UMD with UL means going from a school hopelessly limited by its debt to a school already competing financially even without the level of TV and bowl money that ACC membership will bring. Syracuse is only a few steps behind UL in this dept.
Agreed. They're going to get their heads drummed in most games. They will definitely sell more tickets to opposing fans, but I have a hard time believing their fan base/boosters are going to respond so much better to Big 10 sports.
The Big 10 has been barely ahead of the ACC on the field, and just added a team that was barely competetive in the ACC, and one of the historically worst NCAA sports programs in history.
I don't know, maybe it makes them all more money, but this has the look of Utah/Colorado in the PAC.
But add to that the fact that Nebraska, an all-time great program, has some very fundamental issues that are going to make it hard for them to recapture what they were, and that it's a little uncertain what level Penn State recovers to, and I think Big 10 football is a question mark.
They will always be incredibly rich, and they will always have great brands. But man, if Big 10 football is a stock, I consider it a sell.
Ohio State and Michigan definitely have the name and means to nationally recruit and always will.
I mean, it will definitely change once the numbers even up at the end, but right now the B1G has 2 of ESPN's top 20 20014 classes (not counting ND of course). The ACC has five. And ACC recruiting will only get better if we ever start performing on the field.
Again, the B1G will always have big time money, but unless people are going out to see checkbooks facing off, I do think they face a football problem.
Just about the stupidest strategy one could employ is to rely on opposing fans buying tickets to increase revenues. They'll see an attendance bump due to the novelty of new faces, but that will dissipate quickly, especially if they fail to be any more competitive than they have been in the ACC.
Look at their 2014 home schedule...
JMU, TBA, Ohio St, Michigan State, Iowa, Rutgers
They would have played
JMU, Florida State, Virginia Tech, Miami, NC State, Wake
So, is someone going to try to tell me, at least in 2014, that they will being drawing better for the Big Ten if the novelty factor wasn't there? They may not have drawn better regardless.
2015
TBA, Bowling Green, South Florida, Michigan, PSU, Wisconsin, Indiana
TBA, Bowling Green, South Florida, Clemson, Virginia, Syracuse, BC
Big Ten wins the odd years...as long as it isn't an ND at home year. If they get ND at home during one of the off years, which is likely, then they've traded 50 years of tradition along with the well being of their basketball and lax programs for better attendance in football in what is likely a maximum of 2 out of every six years (with the rest being a push or even possibly worse).
This is not a recipe for improving MD finances significantly, and football ticket sales are a primary way to do that, not a few million in conference disburssements to cover increased travel costs and decreased hoops demand. This
is a recipe for the B10 for using Maryland to push their brand in the mid-Atlantic. Maryland is d.u.m.b.