(08-07-2014 07:20 PM)goofus Wrote: (08-07-2014 06:14 AM)brista21 Wrote: On another note folks can we try and all get along here. Some of us have been in the Big Ten for all of 10 minutes and we're already fighting.
Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App
Nobody really hates Rutgers. Its just that the big ten has been making a lot moves ever since it become a tv network that are not popular with the midwest fan base.
(1) The leaders and legends fiasco, (2) that stupid B1G abbreviation. (3) Using A conference name that makes no sense anymore. Playing the basketball tourney in DC and maybe NYC. Creating a trophy for the Iowa-Nebraska game called the Heroes game. (4) Expanding to the east coast instead of picking quality schools that are closer like Pitt and Missouri. They all have the same thing in common. Making decisions based on marketing and branding and tv sets instead of making decisions that would actually be popular with the core fans. Delaney and company are acting like tv executives instead of acting like sports fans. People are like, look how much money they are making. Who cares.
...
(1) Yeah, even when observing from a distance as an ACC fan, the Legends/Leaders division names were cringe worthy. Not sure how the powers that be thought for a second these would be acceptable to the media or the public. The Maryland and Rutgers additions helped banish these abominations to the waste bin of history by allowing for geographic based divisions. Sure it could have been done without them, but their arrival certainly made it easier to push through.
(2) I'm not the biggest fan of this either, but have sort of gotten used to it at this point.
(3) This one I am more torn on. There is a lot of branding to the "Big Ten" name that I think is lost if it became Big 11, then Big 12 (well they could not have done that) and then Big 14. I am ok with the name even if the numeric part of it no longer makes sense. Part of the charm of college athletic conferences imo.
(4) Agree with another poster above, do not recall the Big Ten ever being that high on Pitt. Mizzou was a miss for sure, but do not think Pitt brings any more to the conference than Maryland or Rutgers overall.
I think the Big Ten was also looking further ahead than just TV markets. The population in the midwest overall is stagnant and while some northeastern states are also exporting people, it remains a very densely populous and prosperous part of the country. Delaney and the Big Ten presidents knew they needed to diversify out of the midwest to not survive, but thrive, and I think their judgment is sound.
Another thing to consider it to what extent these schools were added to appease Penn State, which until then was an eastern appendage in a midwest conference. Personally as a Maryland alum from New Jersey I am fine with the switch in association from a predominantly southern conference dominated by NC schools to one with roots in what I consider more similar northern states.
(08-12-2014 12:01 PM)brista21 Wrote: (08-11-2014 07:12 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote: I am game for any Big 10 team that wants to take a crack at Army in Yankee Stadium. Hopefully, Army and Rutgers can put a series together in Yankee Stadium.
I would prefer to move our series back on campus beyond 2015. I'd also like to see some sort of announcement that we've added additional games onto the series. I like playing Army and Navy with regularity and consider both schools rivals in football. I think Army and Rutgers are interested in extending their series, but I'm not sure that Navy is interested in extending the series with Rutgers at the moment.
Maryland and Navy have been off and on trying to renew their series. For whatever reasons the schools are not the most interested in doing it regularly but there is a lot of demand within Maryland to see the two in-state schools square off. Just as it is logical for Rutgers to play nearby Army, makes more sense for Maryland to play locally against Navy.