All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > College Football > Maryland & Rutgers to Big Ten?
11/18/2012 7:13 PM
Do some simple research, the Syracuse Brand is stronger than Rutgers and Maryland combined.  Rutgers athletics doesn't even register with the NY Metro population.  Syracuse is the college team of choice for most of the NY Metro area.  Maryland doesn't register either, college sports is a dead item in the BAWA area.  It is all about prosports in the MidAtlantic region.  Big10 really missed the boat on this.  Adding Rutgers and Maryland adds zero value to the Big10.

I would also say the same thing about the ACC adding Boston College, it added nothing.  Boston is a pro town, college sports doesn't register in that town. 
11/18/2012 8:57 PM
It isn't about brand, it is about footprint.  There is no brand that is available to the big ten that would have gone there worth the big ten adding just because of the brand.  Syracuse's brand just isn't big enough to carry it and it doesn't add the footprint that the other two schools add.
11/18/2012 9:46 PM
Posted by moranis on 11/18/2012 8:57:00 PM (view original):
It isn't about brand, it is about footprint.  There is no brand that is available to the big ten that would have gone there worth the big ten adding just because of the brand.  Syracuse's brand just isn't big enough to carry it and it doesn't add the footprint that the other two schools add.
disagree, Syracuse has brand and territory.  Syracuse games are broadcasted in NY Metro, Rutgers games are rarely broadcasted in the area.

also, think UofL would been a much better add than Maryland or Rutgers.  UofL has superior football and basketball programs which at the end of the day are the name of the game.  Big10 didn't add any new territory with Rutgers or Maryland, no way I would define it as adding to the Big10 Footprint.  Big10 made a big mistake on this one.  When adding schools it should be about adding value which over time will prove to be the right approach.  Just like Pac10 adding Colorado and Utah.  They added territory but showing to be poor additions to the conference because there is no value with either school.
11/18/2012 11:05 PM
4 of the 5 highest rated games in ESPN's history in NYC have involved Rutgers (the other was USC-OSU).  The highest rated game on ESPN was by a wide margin Rutgers game against Louisville in 2006.  Last year on a Friday night both Rutgers and Syracuse played games against other Big East opponents at the same time.  Rutgers played 2-4 Louisville on ESPN2.  Syracuse played a ranked West Virginia team on ESPN.  The Rutgers game had over twice the rating of the Syracuse game in NYC.  Rutgers has a lot of upcoming games in Meadowlands and even Yankee Stadium.  Rutgers is NYC's college football team.  And sure NYC isn't a college town (only about 14% of the population follow college football, of course that is about 3 million people so you still want that 14%), but if you are going to pick a team, you pick the team that is the biggest draw and also gets you the state of New Jersey in the process.  Rutgers also has had a better football team than both Louisville and Syracuse over the last decade. 

How about a chart that is floating around the internet that illustrates this point (sorry about the size, but if you quote me you can read it).



Thus by adding Rutgers to Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State, the Big Ten will have about 35% of the NYC college football fan market.  You see the Big Ten knows this, which is why they didn't even try to add Syracuse (it also knows that Connecticut would have been a better add than Syracuse). 

The reality is, Rutgers is a much better team to add if you are trying to capture the New York City market.  All objective factors bear this out (fans, ratings, games in the city, etc.).  Since college basketball doesn't matter in these sorts of things the fact that Syracuse is a much better basketball program just doesn't matter. 
11/19/2012 9:59 AM
I think, as fans, we look at it more from a competitive/regional standpoint.   Florida, FSU and Miami should play each other every year.   The state of Texas should have their own conference.    Boise State sure as hell shouldn't be in the Big East. 

Personally, I'd like to see 12x10 team conferences and a 16 team playoff.   I'd like all the conferences to be somewhat regional and each team plays everyone in their conference(9 games).  But that does away with conference championship games so that will NEVER happen.

Since that won't happen, I'd like to see 6x16 team superconferences(pretty sure we're headed to 4-5 anyway) and an 8 team playoff.   I'd still like them to be somewhat regional but that's not happening either. 

Anyway, as an SEC guy, I liked adding TAMU/Mizzou.   Otherwise, there's about 0 chance I'd have seen Johnny Football on anything but a highlight show.
11/19/2012 10:15 AM
8 conferences of 12 teams would be ideal. Each conference gets to keep its conference championship game... and those 8 winners advance into a playoff. It leaves you with what is for all purposes a 16 team tournament.
11/19/2012 11:25 AM
Posted by moranis on 11/18/2012 11:07:00 PM (view original):
4 of the 5 highest rated games in ESPN's history in NYC have involved Rutgers (the other was USC-OSU).  The highest rated game on ESPN was by a wide margin Rutgers game against Louisville in 2006.  Last year on a Friday night both Rutgers and Syracuse played games against other Big East opponents at the same time.  Rutgers played 2-4 Louisville on ESPN2.  Syracuse played a ranked West Virginia team on ESPN.  The Rutgers game had over twice the rating of the Syracuse game in NYC.  Rutgers has a lot of upcoming games in Meadowlands and even Yankee Stadium.  Rutgers is NYC's college football team.  And sure NYC isn't a college town (only about 14% of the population follow college football, of course that is about 3 million people so you still want that 14%), but if you are going to pick a team, you pick the team that is the biggest draw and also gets you the state of New Jersey in the process.  Rutgers also has had a better football team than both Louisville and Syracuse over the last decade. 

How about a chart that is floating around the internet that illustrates this point (sorry about the size, but if you quote me you can read it).



Thus by adding Rutgers to Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State, the Big Ten will have about 35% of the NYC college football fan market.  You see the Big Ten knows this, which is why they didn't even try to add Syracuse (it also knows that Connecticut would have been a better add than Syracuse). 

The reality is, Rutgers is a much better team to add if you are trying to capture the New York City market.  All objective factors bear this out (fans, ratings, games in the city, etc.).  Since college basketball doesn't matter in these sorts of things the fact that Syracuse is a much better basketball program just doesn't matter. 
So where did this information come from?  What is the source?  I remember the Rutgers-UL game on the Thursday night, but still that is only one event.  Both teams were top 10, but that hasn't happened since.

Any Big10 fan that is happy with adding Rutgers is kidding themselves.  It is **** poor. 

I would say the same thing about the SEC adding Missouri, poor addition.  But getting TXAM was huge for the SEC.
11/19/2012 11:57 AM
Posted by cravedogg on 11/19/2012 11:25:00 AM (view original):
Posted by moranis on 11/18/2012 11:07:00 PM (view original):
4 of the 5 highest rated games in ESPN's history in NYC have involved Rutgers (the other was USC-OSU).  The highest rated game on ESPN was by a wide margin Rutgers game against Louisville in 2006.  Last year on a Friday night both Rutgers and Syracuse played games against other Big East opponents at the same time.  Rutgers played 2-4 Louisville on ESPN2.  Syracuse played a ranked West Virginia team on ESPN.  The Rutgers game had over twice the rating of the Syracuse game in NYC.  Rutgers has a lot of upcoming games in Meadowlands and even Yankee Stadium.  Rutgers is NYC's college football team.  And sure NYC isn't a college town (only about 14% of the population follow college football, of course that is about 3 million people so you still want that 14%), but if you are going to pick a team, you pick the team that is the biggest draw and also gets you the state of New Jersey in the process.  Rutgers also has had a better football team than both Louisville and Syracuse over the last decade. 

How about a chart that is floating around the internet that illustrates this point (sorry about the size, but if you quote me you can read it).



Thus by adding Rutgers to Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State, the Big Ten will have about 35% of the NYC college football fan market.  You see the Big Ten knows this, which is why they didn't even try to add Syracuse (it also knows that Connecticut would have been a better add than Syracuse). 

The reality is, Rutgers is a much better team to add if you are trying to capture the New York City market.  All objective factors bear this out (fans, ratings, games in the city, etc.).  Since college basketball doesn't matter in these sorts of things the fact that Syracuse is a much better basketball program just doesn't matter. 
So where did this information come from?  What is the source?  I remember the Rutgers-UL game on the Thursday night, but still that is only one event.  Both teams were top 10, but that hasn't happened since.

Any Big10 fan that is happy with adding Rutgers is kidding themselves.  It is **** poor. 

I would say the same thing about the SEC adding Missouri, poor addition.  But getting TXAM was huge for the SEC.
dude a simple internet search is all you had to do.  I found multiple sources which contained all of that information.  Rutgers is by far the most popular team in NYC.  You were wrong, just admit it and move on.

Oh and Maryland officially approved the move to the Big Ten.  Will begin play in the 2014-15 season.  Rutgers will come on board tomorrow for the same season I would imagine.

11/19/2012 11:58 AM
It's **** poor from a perspective of adding to the strength of the conference athletically, but from a revenue perspective, which is what drives all of this, if adding Rutgers gets the Big 10 Network on basic cable in NJ and the NY Metro area, it's a huge add.  Same for Maryland and the Baltimore/Washington area.  I would assume they've done their homework on that: if they haven't and that doesn't happen, then yeah, this would be a bad move even from that perspective. 

No Big 10 fan should be happy/excited about this move from an on the field football perspective, but that's not why this stuff happens anymore.
11/19/2012 12:06 PM
Be interested to see what they do with the divisions. 

I would imagine they will essentially keep the divisions in tact, but will move Illinois from the Leaders to Legends and just add Rutgers and Maryland to the Leaders, but I never thought they would have separated OSU and Michigan so maybe they are going to do a full realignment again.

11/19/2012 12:56 PM
I'm sure it makes sense from the revenue standpoint.    Smarter people with more information than us make those decisions.   But I can't imagine a Michigan FAN saying "**** YEAH!!!  We get to travel to Maryland every other year!!!"
11/19/2012 1:04 PM
Posted by MikeT23 on 11/19/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I'm sure it makes sense from the revenue standpoint.    Smarter people with more information than us make those decisions.   But I can't imagine a Michigan FAN saying "**** YEAH!!!  We get to travel to Maryland every other year!!!"
Yeah don't get me wrong, I am not a fan of the move at all.  As an Ohio State fan I just don't see the point or the benefit to the Buckeyes.  That said, my posts in this thread have clearly been about the Big Ten's reasoning, which is clearly dollars, nothing more and nothing less.
11/19/2012 1:08 PM
I'm in central PA and I work with some OSU fans/alums who are pumped about having more games within easy driving distance, but that's about the only sort of situation that where I would see anyone getting excited it about from a fan perspective.
11/19/2012 1:13 PM
great move for the conference. maryland is a sleeping giant with the under armour money and influence. rutgers is a good institution that isn't flashy but has solid programs in the majority of sports, especially football.

this isn't the end game. the big ten has the highest revenues of any conference in the country, so they can get just about any school they want east of the rio grande and above the mason-dixon.
11/19/2012 1:17 PM
Good thing too, because there are a ton of prizes just waiting to be had in that area...
of 5
All Forums > Gridiron Dynasty Football > College Football > Maryland & Rutgers to Big Ten?

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.