WOW: ESPN reports that Maryland, Rutgers in serious talks to join Big Ten

Donate To GopherHole

Under Armour's founder (Maryland grad) apparently set aside $64 million for "charitable purposes" recently. Rumor (rumour?) that it could be to pay for Maryland's ACC exit fee.
 

Embarrassing. Maryland and Rutgers in the B1G. Let that sink in....
 

John Galt said:
Embarrassing. Maryland and Rutgers in the B1G. Let that sink in....
Click to expand...

Face it, it will no longer be the Big Ten as we have known it - especially those of us that remember when it was actually 10 teams.
 

RailBaronYarr said:
Really? Maryland and Rutgers? Does that get ANYONE excited at ALL? I don't care about attracting the east coast media - with teams like that it won't happen anyway. Sorry but I look at the types of teams added to conferences over the past few years and we could/should absolutely do better.
Click to expand...

YES!!!! Living in MD with the thought of being able to attend an occasional game at Maryland to see the Gophers (FB and BB) does, in fact, get me excited! So this life long Gophers fan couldn't be happier :clap:
 









Less-than-thriling news. If it's only Rutgers and Maryland, they should both go to the Leaders and Wiscy comes to the Legends. Implement Divisional play in basketball as well. Expand to 19 games. Everyone in your division twice and everyone in the other division once.

If the 16-team rumors are true with GT and NC, Purdue and MSU should be put with the 6 newbies in a division and the original 8 in the other and we can forget this ever happened.
 

supadupafly said:
perhaps coach kill and AD teague knew something that we and the media didn't?????
Click to expand...

seriously though. i honestly believe the only reason the minnesota vs. texas home & home ended up being mutually cancelled between the two schools was because texas let minnesota know in confidence that the whole big 12 shake-up thing was going to be going down, that texas might be going to the pac-12, the whole longhorn tv network parameters was going to screw everything up broadcast wise, etc. perhaps the big ten asked minnesota to cancel the UNC home and home knowing this ACC shake up was coming down the pipeline and is reimbursing us on the back end??
 

howeda7 said:
Less-than-thriling news. If it's only Rutgers and Maryland, they should both go to the Leaders and Wiscy comes to the Legends. Implement Divisional play in basketball as well. Expand to 19 games. Everyone in your division twice and everyone in the other division once.

If the 16-team rumors are true with GT and NC, Purdue and MSU should be put with the 6 newbies in a division and the original 8 in the other and we can forget this ever happened.
Click to expand...

That would make the divisions even more woefully unbalanced than they already are.

Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Illinois
Rutgers
Maryland
Indiana

versus

Nebraska
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa

If just Rutgers and Maryland are added, I'm guessing a lot of things end up shuffled. Just hope we don't lose our traditional rivalries.
 



I'm pretty thankful that Jim Delaney is our commissioner. He had the foresight to start a conference network, something that seemed pretty crazy at the time. That network has been the major force keeping the Big Ten together and more attractive to other schools. It is nice to know that none of our members are even entertaining the idea of switching conferences, imagine being a fan of a Big XII, Big East, or ACC school. You'd never know if the Big Ten or SEC are going to come calling for one of your member schools.
 

Gopher07 said:
That would make the divisions even more woefully unbalanced than they already are.

Ohio State
Penn State
Purdue
Illinois
Rutgers
Maryland
Indiana

versus

Nebraska
Michigan
Michigan State
Northwestern
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Iowa

If just Rutgers and Maryland are added, I'm guessing a lot of things end up shuffled. Just hope we don't lose our traditional rivalries.
Click to expand...

Maybe swap Michigan for Illinois then. I'd sacrifice the Michigan game at this point and the fallacy of setting up the divisions for the sake of a UM-OSU championship has already been proven, both by the B1G and the ACC's 0-fer on Miami-FSU.
 

Well, its time for these two lousy programs to join the big ten. Anybody excited now that the next football games Maryland and Rutgers play will be as Big Ten member?
 


station19 said:
Not me. Delaney has done a poor job with expansion.
Click to expand...


I don't get why you say that? Who should we have taken instead? What other more worthy candidates brought more to the table, while also being in a situation where they'd even consider making a switch?!

UNC? - Chances were always very slim, and its possible that Duke would have had to come along to get them. Having to take BOTH of those teams robs the conference of gaining more of a media footprint. And does Duke have anything in the way of Research money coming into their school? This isn't just about football, or basketball especially. The B1G conf is not hurting and needing help when it comes to bb. And Maryland kind of helps in regards to bb. Getting both UNC and Duke couldn't hurt the bb aspect for the conf, but wouldn't help enough in other ways.

ND? - Did we really want those arrogant losers? I didn't. And its likely that ND told the B1G that they wanted far more from the B1G than the B1G was willing to give them, and likewise the B1G probably told ND that they wanted more from ND than ND was willing to give the B1G.


Syracuse? - Really? SU has half the enrollment of Rutgers, so fewer alumni out and about in the world, and were going to be booted from the AAU before they chose instead to just up and quit the AAU. Their research money was on a steady decline for the past decade, and I thought I read somewhere it had dropped by something like 40%? And not sure about the #s but Rutgers probably has a larger media footprint. And as far as sports go, if football is king, its arguable that Rutgers has more potential in football than does Syracuse. And the B1G is doing just fine in cbb, so adding another good bb team is probably one of the least of their concerns, especially with Maryland being mostly a bb school. And beyond bb and fb, SU has only lacrosse to contribute, and so its possible Rutgers has more to offer overall when it comes to sports, like I think their women's bb is pretty highly rated, and women's bb is an area I'm sure the B1G wouldn't mind improving on. Far secondary to football of course. But after fb, with mens bb not needing help, next most important sports would be hockey, maybe baseball and then womens bb, right?! Does either Rutgers or Syracuse have hockey even? So that leaves baseball and womens bb. Not sure that SU has baseball?! So as minor as womens bb seems to be compared to football and media footprint and all that, its possible it is a small factor that was considered?!



So who else?! What school that we realistically could have gotten that is? And being geographically close is apparently still important.


Kansas? Not sure the media footprint of KU is all that impressive, and are they an AAU member and what other than mens bb do they offer for sports? Anything? Do they have any research to talk about? I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking?


Missouri? Other than their recent doing in cbb and mens fb, they haven't done much in sports that I know of. They seem to have been consistently overrated in cbb over the years is what I see. Fb? Their recent upswing probably has more to do with joining the SEC than anything Missouri inherently contributed. Not sure if they are AAU or have any research to bring to the table either?! They have decent wrestling, but wrestling has to be the last sport the B1G is concerned with right now, with the B1G so dominating that sport and that sport shrinking as it is.


So tell me station19, what am I missing here? We seemed primed to bring in UNC and GT or GT and FSU or GT and Kansas maybe or something like that, but the ACC fought back and showed everyone that they weren't going to be run out of existence. So that kind of took all of those schools off of the table.

So what am I not seeing or understanding?
 

PartoPitinosPosse said:
I don't get why you say that? Who should we have taken instead? What other more worthy candidates brought more to the table, while also being in a situation where they'd even consider making a switch?!

UNC? - Chances were always very slim, and its possible that Duke would have had to come along to get them. Having to take BOTH of those teams robs the conference of gaining more of a media footprint. And does Duke have anything in the way of Research money coming into their school? This isn't just about football, or basketball especially. The B1G conf is not hurting and needing help when it comes to bb. And Maryland kind of helps in regards to bb. Getting both UNC and Duke couldn't hurt the bb aspect for the conf, but wouldn't help enough in other ways.

ND? - Did we really want those arrogant losers? I didn't. And its likely that ND told the B1G that they wanted far more from the B1G than the B1G was willing to give them, and likewise the B1G probably told ND that they wanted more from ND than ND was willing to give the B1G.


Syracuse? - Really? SU has half the enrollment of Rutgers, so fewer alumni out and about in the world, and were going to be booted from the AAU before they chose instead to just up and quit the AAU. Their research money was on a steady decline for the past decade, and I thought I read somewhere it had dropped by something like 40%? And not sure about the #s but Rutgers probably has a larger media footprint. And as far as sports go, if football is king, its arguable that Rutgers has more potential in football than does Syracuse. And the B1G is doing just fine in cbb, so adding another good bb team is probably one of the least of their concerns, especially with Maryland being mostly a bb school. And beyond bb and fb, SU has only lacrosse to contribute, and so its possible Rutgers has more to offer overall when it comes to sports, like I think their women's bb is pretty highly rated, and women's bb is an area I'm sure the B1G wouldn't mind improving on. Far secondary to football of course. But after fb, with mens bb not needing help, next most important sports would be hockey, maybe baseball and then womens bb, right?! Does either Rutgers or Syracuse have hockey even? So that leaves baseball and womens bb. Not sure that SU has baseball?! So as minor as womens bb seems to be compared to football and media footprint and all that, its possible it is a small factor that was considered?!



So who else?! What school that we realistically could have gotten that is? And being geographically close is apparently still important.


Kansas? Not sure the media footprint of KU is all that impressive, and are they an AAU member and what other than mens bb do they offer for sports? Anything? Do they have any research to talk about? I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking?


Missouri? Other than their recent doing in cbb and mens fb, they haven't done much in sports that I know of. They seem to have been consistently overrated in cbb over the years is what I see. Fb? Their recent upswing probably has more to do with joining the SEC than anything Missouri inherently contributed. Not sure if they are AAU or have any research to bring to the table either?! They have decent wrestling, but wrestling has to be the last sport the B1G is concerned with right now, with the B1G so dominating that sport and that sport shrinking as it is.


So tell me station19, what am I missing here? We seemed primed to bring in UNC and GT or GT and FSU or GT and Kansas maybe or something like that, but the ACC fought back and showed everyone that they weren't going to be run out of existence. So that kind of took all of those schools off of the table.

So what am I not seeing or understanding?
Click to expand...

You seem to have a nice conversation going on with yourself....so I really hate to interrupt.

Taking Nebraska over Mizzou was a huge F-up.

Rutgers and Maryland were added only for TV sets, nothing else.
 

PartoPitinosPosse said:
I don't get why you say that? Who should we have taken instead? What other more worthy candidates brought more to the table, while also being in a situation where they'd even consider making a switch?!

UNC? - Chances were always very slim, and its possible that Duke would have had to come along to get them. Having to take BOTH of those teams robs the conference of gaining more of a media footprint. And does Duke have anything in the way of Research money coming into their school? This isn't just about football, or basketball especially. The B1G conf is not hurting and needing help when it comes to bb. And Maryland kind of helps in regards to bb. Getting both UNC and Duke couldn't hurt the bb aspect for the conf, but wouldn't help enough in other ways.

ND? - Did we really want those arrogant losers? I didn't. And its likely that ND told the B1G that they wanted far more from the B1G than the B1G was willing to give them, and likewise the B1G probably told ND that they wanted more from ND than ND was willing to give the B1G.


Syracuse? - Really? SU has half the enrollment of Rutgers, so fewer alumni out and about in the world, and were going to be booted from the AAU before they chose instead to just up and quit the AAU. Their research money was on a steady decline for the past decade, and I thought I read somewhere it had dropped by something like 40%? And not sure about the #s but Rutgers probably has a larger media footprint. And as far as sports go, if football is king, its arguable that Rutgers has more potential in football than does Syracuse. And the B1G is doing just fine in cbb, so adding another good bb team is probably one of the least of their concerns, especially with Maryland being mostly a bb school. And beyond bb and fb, SU has only lacrosse to contribute, and so its possible Rutgers has more to offer overall when it comes to sports, like I think their women's bb is pretty highly rated, and women's bb is an area I'm sure the B1G wouldn't mind improving on. Far secondary to football of course. But after fb, with mens bb not needing help, next most important sports would be hockey, maybe baseball and then womens bb, right?! Does either Rutgers or Syracuse have hockey even? So that leaves baseball and womens bb. Not sure that SU has baseball?! So as minor as womens bb seems to be compared to football and media footprint and all that, its possible it is a small factor that was considered?!



So who else?! What school that we realistically could have gotten that is? And being geographically close is apparently still important.


Kansas? Not sure the media footprint of KU is all that impressive, and are they an AAU member and what other than mens bb do they offer for sports? Anything? Do they have any research to talk about? I'm not sure, that's why I'm asking?


Missouri? Other than their recent doing in cbb and mens fb, they haven't done much in sports that I know of. They seem to have been consistently overrated in cbb over the years is what I see. Fb? Their recent upswing probably has more to do with joining the SEC than anything Missouri inherently contributed. Not sure if they are AAU or have any research to bring to the table either?! They have decent wrestling, but wrestling has to be the last sport the B1G is concerned with right now, with the B1G so dominating that sport and that sport shrinking as it is.


So tell me station19, what am I missing here? We seemed primed to bring in UNC and GT or GT and FSU or GT and Kansas maybe or something like that, but the ACC fought back and showed everyone that they weren't going to be run out of existence. So that kind of took all of those schools off of the table.

So what am I not seeing or understanding?
Click to expand...

In 2010 Duke brought in $135 million more than the U of M from the NIH alone. So yeah, Duke brings in the $$$.
http://medcitynews.com/2011/03/top-nih-grant-funding-by-institutions-states-for-2010/
 

Dr. Lloyd Christmas said:
In 2010 Duke brought in $135 million more than the U of M from the NIH alone. So yeah, Duke brings in the $$$.
http://medcitynews.com/2011/03/top-nih-grant-funding-by-institutions-states-for-2010/
Click to expand...


Well, like I said, I didn't know for sure about their research. I knew they were highly rated in academics.

But that still doesn't change the fact that UNC and Duke combined overlap as far as the media footprint goes. It's altogether possible that had the ACC not made the move they did to strengthen their position as a conference, the B1G may have taken Duke to get UNC. But just as its not only about football, its also not only about research dollars, either.

Duke by themselves would have brought research, academics, a media footprint and top notch bb, but with bb not being our main sports priority, and Duke fb being basically irrelevant(before this year that was the case at least), they, by themselves wouldn't have been a bad candidate, but not an incredible candidate. UNC by themselves would have been a good candidate for sure as well, and probably would have thrived cfb wise after moving to the B1G, kind of like Missouri has moving to the SEC.

But combined, they just don't bring enough to the table in my opinion, as the media footprint is probably the most important of all the factors.

And I'm not sure if Duke's smaller enrollment and being a private school is a big selling point, either?!
 

station19 said:
You seem to have a nice conversation going on with yourself....so I really hate to interrupt.

Taking Nebraska over Mizzou was a huge F-up.

Rutgers and Maryland were added only for TV sets, nothing else.
Click to expand...


How was taking Nebraska over Mizzou a huge f-up?! No one could have known Mizzou was going to have a good year in fb this year, or that Nebraska was going to struggle, and my guess is that Nebraska still has a bigger upside when it comes to fb than Mizzou does. Nebraska brings in the right coach and they could be back on top again. We don't need help in bb, and Missouri is constantly overrated in bb anyway. What else does Mizzou offer that's superior to Nebraska? I don't know, so that's why I am asking? Does Missouri have a larger media footprint? I'd believe that. The 2 schools are pretty much the same as far as academics and research is concerned. And I have a feeling that Nebraska wanted into the B1G and Missouri was leaning towards going to the SEC. so that could have been as much of a factor as anything else.



And yes, tv sets was the main factor, but not the only one. Research dollars is a huge thing to consider as well. My guess is that AAU membership and decent research #s were the requirement for consideration, and after being figured as a candidate, then it was the # of tv sets that made them the schools that were chosen?
 

PartoPitinosPosse said:
How was taking Nebraska over Mizzou a huge f-up?! No one could have known Mizzou was going to have a good year in fb this year, or that Nebraska was going to struggle, and my guess is that Nebraska still has a bigger upside when it comes to fb than Mizzou does. Nebraska brings in the right coach and they could be back on top again. We don't need help in bb, and Missouri is constantly overrated in bb anyway. What else does Mizzou offer that's superior to Nebraska? I don't know, so that's why I am asking? Does Missouri have a larger media footprint? I'd believe that. The 2 schools are pretty much the same as far as academics and research is concerned. And I have a feeling that Nebraska wanted into the B1G and Missouri was leaning towards going to the SEC. so that could have been as much of a factor as anything else.



And yes, tv sets was the main factor, but not the only one. Research dollars is a huge thing to consider as well. My guess is that AAU membership and decent research #s were the requirement for consideration, and after being figured as a candidate, then it was the # of tv sets that made them the schools that were chosen?
Click to expand...

AAU membership was required. Nebraska lost theirs the year after they were accepted.

Missouri was on their knees begging to join the Big Ten.

Nebraska will never be what they were in football.

Misssouri has St Louis and KC for media markets. Nebraska has Omaha.

Nebraska brings nothing but a football past. I highly doubt they will ever re-emerge.

And what's this we don't need help in BB?
 

Grant said:
Well, its time for these two lousy programs to join the big ten. Anybody excited now that the next football games Maryland and Rutgers play will be as Big Ten member?
Click to expand...

These two are perfect fit; they already have the losing your bowl game tradition down pat. Welcome to the B1G!
 

station19 said:
AAU membership was required. Nebraska lost theirs the year after they were accepted.

Missouri was on their knees begging to join the Big Ten.

Nebraska will never be what they were in football.

Misssouri has St Louis and KC for media markets. Nebraska has Omaha.

Nebraska brings nothing but a football past. I highly doubt they will ever re-emerge.

And what's this we don't need help in BB?
Click to expand...



Yes Nebraska lost their AAU membership, but the circumstances under which they lost their membership, from what I could tell, were not something I think we need to be too alarmed about.


I am not sure why you think Nebraska will never be what they once were in football? If there is no hope for Nebraska, then what hope would there be for Minnesota?! Is there a particular reason that you believe Nebraska is doomed in regards to football?



And yes, I figured the media footprint for Missouri was bigger than Nebraska, but I think this is where the "needs" come into play, cfb vs cbb.

Back when we were at 11 teams, I am guessing the league felt that getting help in regards to football was the biggest need we needed filled, and Missouri just didn't have a ton of history in regards to football, and I bet you 9 out of 10 Gopher fans would have chosen Nebraska over Missouri at the time they were making that decision. They just seemed like more of a natural fit to me.


As for my saying that we don't need help in BB, what I really mean is that we need help in cfb MORE than we need help in cbb.

Football has more money involved, for one, and the B1G has been doing pretty well in cbb at least in comparison to how they are doing in cfb.



It's easy to look at what Missouri has done in just this one season, in retrospect, and claim it was a mistake, but how quickly you forget that Missouri went what? 5-7 just last season? And Missouri's bb team isn't actually very good. They win a lot of games because they play in a weak SEC conf. But they rarely do much when March rolls around, its been that way for as long as I can remember. Better bb program than us, but that doesn't take much. I am sure they would have faired better than Nebraska has in regards to bb, but at the time it wasn't basketball that we were probably concerned with. I don't think we had decided to add more than just the one team yet, so most people assume that they went with the most natural fit that also had the most potential when it came to football.

Nebraska joined the B1G in 2008, but the decision had been made probably before the start of the 2007 season, you'd think? I can't remember. But if this is the case, Nebraska, playing in the same conf as Missouri, had a better record than Missouri in fb for each of the 7 seasons from 2000-2006. Missouri didn't have their breakout season until 2007. And even so, in Nebraska's first 4 seasons in the B1G conf, they have won 38 games so far, while Missouri has won 34 games during that same time period and they have the same coach that could only muster a 29-30 record his first 5 years at Missouri and 37-35 after his first 6, and that is up to 2006 and about when the decision to go with Nebraska came about. So why would you, or anyone at that time, come to the conclusion that Missouri had a better future in cfb??? No one would have concluded as much.

At the time we were thinking of adding only 1 team, Nebraska, because of its football, was probably the best and most natural fit. We'd played them almost 50 times over the years, and Missouri maybe a couple times? It wasn't until later, from my perception which could be wrong, that the conf started thinking and being more concerned with a candidates media footprint.
 

PartoPitinosPosse said:
Yes Nebraska lost their AAU membership, but the circumstances under which they lost their membership, from what I could tell, were not something I think we need to be too alarmed about.


I am not sure why you think Nebraska will never be what they once were in football? If there is no hope for Nebraska, then what hope would there be for Minnesota?! Is there a particular reason that you believe Nebraska is doomed in regards to football?



And yes, I figured the media footprint for Missouri was bigger than Nebraska, but I think this is where the "needs" come into play, cfb vs cbb.

Back when we were at 11 teams, I am guessing the league felt that getting help in regards to football was the biggest need we needed filled, and Missouri just didn't have a ton of history in regards to football, and I bet you 9 out of 10 Gopher fans would have chosen Nebraska over Missouri at the time they were making that decision. They just seemed like more of a natural fit to me.


As for my saying that we don't need help in BB, what I really mean is that we need help in cfb MORE than we need help in cbb.

Football has more money involved, for one, and the B1G has been doing pretty well in cbb at least in comparison to how they are doing in cfb.



It's easy to look at what Missouri has done in just this one season, in retrospect, and claim it was a mistake, but how quickly you forget that Missouri went what? 5-7 just last season? And Missouri's bb team isn't actually very good. They win a lot of games because they play in a weak SEC conf. But they rarely do much when March rolls around, its been that way for as long as I can remember. Better bb program than us, but that doesn't take much. I am sure they would have faired better than Nebraska has in regards to bb, but at the time it wasn't basketball that we were probably concerned with. I don't think we had decided to add more than just the one team yet, so most people assume that they went with the most natural fit that also had the most potential when it came to football.

Nebraska joined the B1G in 2008, but the decision had been made probably before the start of the 2007 season, you'd think? I can't remember. But if this is the case, Nebraska, playing in the same conf as Missouri, had a better record than Missouri in fb for each of the 7 seasons from 2000-2006. Missouri didn't have their breakout season until 2007. And even so, in Nebraska's first 4 seasons in the B1G conf, they have won 38 games so far, while Missouri has won 34 games during that same time period and they have the same coach that could only muster a 29-30 record his first 5 years at Missouri and 37-35 after his first 6, and that is up to 2006 and about when the decision to go with Nebraska came about. So why would you, or anyone at that time, come to the conclusion that Missouri had a better future in cfb??? No one would have concluded as much.

At the time we were thinking of adding only 1 team, Nebraska, because of its football, was probably the best and most natural fit. We'd played them almost 50 times over the years, and Missouri maybe a couple times? It wasn't until later, from my perception which could be wrong, that the conf started thinking and being more concerned with a candidates media footprint.
Click to expand...

WTF?
 

Hey, just not totally understanding why you feel Missouri, back at the time the decision was made, was the better choice? Can you explain in more detail? I've lived all over the country and never got the impression anyone was impressed with Missouri, in the least, but I found Nebraska fans or at least people who respected Nebraska of who at least knew of their existence all over the country.
 

PartoPitinosPosse said:
Hey, just not totally understanding why you feel Missouri, back at the time the decision was made, was the better choice? Can you explain in more detail? I've lived all over the country and never got the impression anyone was impressed with Missouri, in the least, but I found Nebraska fans or at least people who respected Nebraska of who at least knew of their existence all over the country.
Click to expand...

I stated it in my original post. Also I formed my opinion long before this last FB season.

You have too many preconceived opinions of what other people are thinking.
 

station19 said:
I stated it in my original post. Also I formed my opinion long before this last FB season.

You have too many preconceived opinions of what other people are thinking.
Click to expand...


dude, I have an open mind. I'm willing to hear you out, but if you want to remain tight lipped and keep your opinions to yourself, then fine, do that, but if that's the case, then why do you respond at all?

You come across as kind of condescending. Not saying you are, just saying that you express your opinion very freely, but then you are very resistant to defending your opinion with any real substance?! I just don't get it?

Are we having a conversation, or what? I'm willing to hear you out. I don't know everything, I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong, but you act like you can't say more than 12 words in response to me or something bad will happen?!


You say that I have too may preconceived opinions of what other people are thinking?! Well help me correct that problem, if you can?! I can only work with what I've been given or what has been presented to me. Enlighten me.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom