So Maryland and Rutgers have joined the Big 10. I guess I understand the country is going to be looking at five main conferences for football and the Big East is like a minor league team or a feeder program for the Yankees (Royals, Brewers, Pirates, etc.) But do those teams make the Big Ten any better? You've heard nothing but how bad the Big Ten is this year and how awful their bowl record is since Ohio State were National Champions (35-52ish?) All you hear about is how weak the Big 10 is and how strong the SEC is. So, how do you respond? You get Maryland and Rutgers. Neither team helps for football. We already have Illinois, Minnesota, Indiana, and Northwestern. Yes, Rutgers has been better lately...but that coach left for the National Football League and his players will soon be gone.
You can make the argument that Maryland will make the conference stronger in basketball, but that was when coach Williams was roaming the sidelines under the Bush administration.
However, I don't have a solution or better recommendation. But going more east rather than south is not making the league stronger. If they want to make a splash, they HAVE to get Notre Dame. I'm not suggesting they should have taken a run at Louisville or Kentucky or Tennessee, but at least it would have been south.
If the ACC gets Louisville or UCONN, the ACC becomes probably the top basketball conference. With Duke, UNC, UConn/Louisville, Notre Dame, and Pittsburgh. But, the Big 10 still looks good with MSU, OSU, UM, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Maryland.
1 comment:
For Maryland and Rutgers it's all about money. For the B1G it's all about expanding the B1G Network into the East Coast market, especially New Jersey and New York. The sports don't matter here.
Post a Comment