Source: Maryland (and Rutgers) to Big Ten is 'pretty serious'

[honkytonk]

I've provided links to articles referencing quotes from 20 to 30 years ago on the subject.  Tranghese has said effectively the same thing as Paterno.  I haven't seen any of your links, but I have provided many to support the clear position that PSU not only wanted to be in the Big East, they authored their own league called the Eastern Conference because they were an eastern school. 

I realized I was google searching Ped State instead of Penn State so my results were a bit off. But dont worry....I promise I will provide direct quotes from administrators eventually. Google searching anything regarding the B10 is messy right now.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I realized I was google searching Ped State instead of Penn State so my results were a bit off. But dont worry....I promise I will provide direct quotes from administrators eventually. Google searching anything regarding the B10 is messy right now.

I'll answer for you:

After PSU joined the Big10, I bet they said it was their plan all along, and they were thrilled to be there.

What else could they say? "We really wanted to start a big conf. out east, but couldn't get it done, so we decided to go with the Big10."

I think it's naive to think that if Penn State were in the Big East since 1990, that things would still be exactly the same.

[honkytonk]

My google searching is moving in the right direction. Not completely there yet. Found this nice tidbit:

QUESTION: What really happened back in 1985 when Penn State applied for membership in the Big East Conference? According to Big East archives, the Nittany Lions, needing the approval of only six schools, were rejected by a vote of 5-3. Why was Penn State's membership rejected? Specifically, where did you stand in all of that? -- Mark Kelly; Syracuse, N.Y.

JAKE CROUTHAMEL: "Penn State wanted to start a new league of its own, composed mostly of schools that played football. And the deal was: No football revenues would be shared, but all basketball-generated revenues would be shared -- including gate receipts from home games. For me, it was a no-brainer, meaning that was a bad deal for Syracuse.

"Those were early years, but we were doing quite well in basketball in the Carrier Dome. So, mostly as a defense, some of us encouraged Penn State to join the Big East, which I definitely favored. As a parochial conference, however, I think you can pretty much see where the opposition came from. The deciding vote came from one of those schools, whose name I will not mention. But you are right, Mark. It was a one-vote miss.

"I voted for Penn State. Yes, I did. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, I may have been the one who first suggested that we invite Penn State into the Big East, but that original group was not even talking about football. The Big East was formed as a parochial conference and as a basketball conference. And Penn State was not parochial and it was not basketball. It was football. To the original Big East group, if you went to Penn State, you couldn't get any further away from the original purpose of the league."

http://www.syracuse.com/poliquin/index.ssf/2012/08/the_morning_orange_jake_crouth.html

[ChicosBailBonds]

Thanks Honkytonk.  Don't your own quotes you provided say what we've been saying, however?  First and foremost, they wanted to start their own deal, not go to the Big Ten. 


"Penn State wanted to start a new league of its own, composed mostly of schools that played football. And the deal was: No football revenues would be shared, but all basketball-generated revenues would be shared -- including gate receipts from home games. For me, it was a no-brainer, meaning that was a bad deal for Syracuse.


Your quotes go on to confirm what I said earlier....as a conference we were thinking only about basketball and not big picture.  We weren't visionary to include football and now we are seeing the results of that thinking.  Tranghese was right, "we will rue the day" of that decision.

[honkytonk]

Thanks Honkytonk.  Don't your own quotes you provided say what we've been saying, however?  First and foremost, they wanted to start their own deal, not go to the Big Ten. 


"Penn State wanted to start a new league of its own, composed mostly of schools that played football. And the deal was: No football revenues would be shared, but all basketball-generated revenues would be shared -- including gate receipts from home games. For me, it was a no-brainer, meaning that was a bad deal for Syracuse.


Your quotes go on to confirm what I said earlier....as a conference we were thinking only about basketball and not big picture.  We weren't visionary to include football and now we are seeing the results of that thinking.  Tranghese was right, "we will rue the day" of that decision.

But Ped State needed (I think) both Syracuse and BC to leave the BE. That wasnt going to happen under the deal Penn State proposed. When Paterno's conference idea fell through, they were invited to join the BE. Yeah, so? As I said much earlier in this thread, there is nothing there I didnt know. What you are glossing over is the fact that Penn State went so far as to try to create its own conference AFTER the BE was formed. If they thought the BE was so GREAT, why did they try to create a new conference? Hmmmmm.....

[honkytonk]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1989-12-15/news/8903180229_1_penn-state-commissioner-james-delany-12th-team

Former Penn State President John Oswald first approached the Big 10 with the idea after the 1980 Fiesta Bowl, which paired the Nittany Lions and Ohio State. Conversations have continued intermittently over the years.

Shortly before retiring this spring, Big 10 Commissioner Wayne Duke was contacted by Penn State Athletic Director Jim Tarman.

``He asked if it (Penn State joining the conference) was still viable,``

Duke said. ``I told him I was leaving, but that in my view, he should pursue it.``

In the interest of full disclosure:

One reason Penn State has pursued it is the school`s modest basketball revenues. Though financially strong in football, the Nittany Lions basketball program suffers from competion provided by teams in the powerful Big East Conference.

When that league was formed in 1979, Penn State had the option of joining. A source in the Big East commissioner`s office said former athletic director and current football coach Joe Paterno wanted to ``move over when we reached a certain level of success.``

The Big East reached success quickly. Paterno, though, tried to destroy it in the early 1980s by proposing the formation of an all-sports conference. With that he hoped to draw Syracuse and Boston College from the Big East, but the conference effectively ended his campaign by inviting Pittsburgh to join the league.

The move left Penn State out in the cold as basketball revenues skyrocketed during the 1980s. The Nittany Lions hope to cash in on those revenues by aligning themselves with the powerful Big 10 in the 1990s.

--I will eventually find the direct quotes from the administrators.

[honkytonk]

Duke first remembers talking to Paterno and then-Penn State President John Oswald about the merger at the 1980 Fiesta Bowl, when Penn State met Ohio State.

"Joe and I had been friends a long time," Duke said. "I stopped at the Fiesta Bowl on my way to the Rose Bowl and (John) Oswald and Joe approached me about Penn State perhaps joining the Big 10.

"At the time, I thought it was a good mix and I still do."

Duke said that Paterno's efforts to form a comprehensive Eastern football conference put a halt to talks then but he added, "I think the emergence of the Big East in basketball, and some other things, academic things, got Penn State to contact the Big 10 again."

"Those talks are related to more than just athletics," Tarman added. "In fact, athletics are kind of secondary. They're related to where this university wants to be in the future. Penn State has a lot in common with most of the Big 10 schools. We're a large, land-grant, research institution like most of the Big 10 schools."

http://articles.philly.com/1989-12-16/sports/26158459_1_jim-tarman-penn-state-nittany-lions/2

[GGGG]

When that league was formed in 1979, Penn State had the option of joining. A source in the Big East commissioner`s office said former athletic director and current football coach Joe Paterno wanted to ``move over when we reached a certain level of success.``

The Big East reached success quickly. Paterno, though, tried to destroy it in the early 1980s by proposing the formation of an all-sports conference. With that he hoped to draw Syracuse and Boston College from the Big East, but the conference effectively ended his campaign by inviting Pittsburgh to join the league.

Duke said that Paterno's efforts to form a comprehensive Eastern football conference put a halt to talks then but he added, "I think the emergence of the Big East in basketball, and some other things, academic things, got Penn State to contact the Big 10 again."

You just provided two quotes that proved exactly what Chicos and I have been saying.  Paterno was trying to form an eastern all sports conference, which failed, and lead PSU to the Big Ten.

Thank for the work on our behalf.  The check isn't in the mail.

[honkytonk]

I don't think there is a chance that PSU goes to the B10 if they were in the BE.  PSU is a traditional eastern school even now.  It is an outlier in the B10 conference in a number of ways.  BC, Syracuse, Rutgers, BC, Miami, Virginia Tech, Pitt...and possibly Maryland, is a formidable eastern conference.

Sultan, this was your original argument. If you want to change it to fit your last post, that's fine.

I stand by the fact that PSU never really wanted to be in the BE (Crouthamel quote states they ecouraged PSU to apply as a defensive move). Heck, the BE didnt even sponsor football until 1990. PSU started talking with the B10 in 1980. Paterno tried to start a new conference after by poaching two Big East members [why would he do that if he thought the BE could be such a nice home?]. BC and Cuse said no. The BE then invited PSU to join. They were not voted in. Gee, I wonder why. They threatened the very existence of the conference by trying to start a football-centric conference and it failed. Then the parochial schools voted against PSU joining. Shocking. Another Crouthamel qoute, "And Penn State was not parochial and it was not basketball. It was football. To the original Big East group, if you went to Penn State, you couldn't get any further away from the original purpose of the league."

Being asked to apply to a conference after jeopardizing iis existence (and asking them to apply because its a sound defensive defensive measure) is not exactly the same as Paterno lobbying for inclusion into a conference that wasnt a good fit and didnt even sponsor football at the time...and even had several members that didnt even have a football team. I think Crouthamel summed it all up nicely.

[mu03eng]

Sultan, this was your original argument. If you want to change it to fit your last post, that's fine.

I stand by the fact that PSU never really wanted to be in the BE (Crouthamel quote states they ecouraged PSU to apply as a defensive move). Heck, the BE didnt even sponsor football until 1990. PSU started talking with the B10 in 1980. Paterno tried to start a new conference after by poaching two Big East members [why would he do that if he thought the BE could be such a nice home?]. BC and Cuse said no. The BE then invited PSU to join. They were not voted in. Gee, I wonder why. They threatened the very existence of the conference by trying to start a football-centric conference and it failed. Then the parochial schools voted against PSU joining. Shocking. Another Crouthamel qoute, "And Penn State was not parochial and it was not basketball. It was football. To the original Big East group, if you went to Penn State, you couldn't get any further away from the original purpose of the league."

Being asked to apply to a conference after jeopardizing iis existence (and asking them to apply because its a sound defensive defensive measure) is not exactly the same as Paterno lobbying for inclusion into a conference that wasnt a good fit and didnt even sponsor football at the time...and even had several members that didnt even have a football team. I think Crouthamel summed it all up nicely.

I've avoided jumping in on this but you are reading the tea leaves wrong.  Penn State always wanted an eastern conference, attempt one was build it from scratch, attempt two was folding in with the Big East.  When one and two failed, option three was the B10.  The Big 10 has never been a great fit for PSU and it's fans.  There is an academic appeal but that's it.  There was never a grand admin plan to move to B1G, that came about in the early 90s when they saw independence as a losing game and had no alternatives.  Keep in mind Syracuse was a bigger football rival with PSU then Pitt at the time.  Nobody at PSU wanted to join the B1G, in fact the BoT tried to scuttle the whole thing in 1992.

[mr.MUskie]

Teddy Greenstein
ON COLLEGES
8:42 p.m. CST, November 19, 2012

The Big Ten knew what it was getting by adding Penn State — a dominant football program. Same with Nebraska.

Now expansion is all about demographics, population shift, TV sets, inventory and subscriber fees.

Which are all fancy ways of saying money.

Asked about Maryland football, which is 6-17 since the 2011 season, Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany said the league can't limit itself to adding pigskin powers like Penn State and Nebraska.

"If that's the litmus test," he said, "then there wouldn't be a lot of expansion around the country."

Here are more questions to examine ...

Will the league stop at 14 after adding Rutgers?

At this point, the Big Ten might not stop before world domination. "In order to be relevant, competitive and to move forward in the 21st century," Delany said, "you need a 21st-century paradigm ... It's not your father's Big Ten."

So who could be next? How about North Carolina, Delany's alma mater? What about Florida State? It's so-so academically and not a member of the Association of American Universities, as preferred by Big Ten honchos. Well, Nebraska lost its AAU status and Notre Dame, a previous Big Ten target, is not a member of the club.

As Michigan athletic director Dave Brandon put it: "10 was a good number; 12 was a good number; 14 will be a good number."

And if the fit is right, "maybe 16 would be the right number."

What's the problem with getting so large?

Rivalries die. Teams start playing each other infrequently. Schedules become inherently unfair.

Delany used to say Big Ten teams want to "play each other more, not less."

Now? "It's not the world you necessarily want," he said, "it's the world you live in."

Actually it's the world he is creating. Delany has pushed for a nine-game conference schedule in football, but athletic directors and coaches have pushed back.

How will adding Maryland and Rutgers make Big Ten schools richer?

More teams means more games, aka inventory. That helps BTN, which will try to land on expanded basic in the beefy New York/New Jersey (7.4 million TV households) and Washington D.C./Baltimore (3.4 million) markets. Philadelphia (3.0) also would be a nice add.

But outside of D.C./Baltimore, it will be an uphill fight. The Big Ten sparred with Comcast before the cable operator agreed to carry BTN. And that was in the football-mad Midwest.

Last week News Corp., the parent company of BTN partner Fox, purchased a minority stake in the YES Network, a New York-based sports channel that broadcasts Yankees and Nets games. So ...

Delany called it a "pure, unadulterated coincidence" with the pending addition of Rutgers, which craves attention from New Yorkers.

The bottom line is that News Corp. could try to bundle BTN with YES to get BTN distributed in New York. BTN already contributes about $6 million a year to each Big Ten school, and analysts estimate that with Maryland and Rutgers, the Big Ten could see a $100 million-plus per year boost in subscriber fees.

The Big Ten's deal with ABC/ESPN, worth $100 million a year, goes through 2016-17.

Delany is more than a little excited to hit the negotiating table.

Speaking of money ...

Yes, that is why Maryland said yes to leaving the ACC. Even if it has to cough up that $50 million exit fee, university President Wallace Loh said, "we have assured the (financial) future of Maryland athletics for decades to come."

What about Legends and Leaders?

Delany said that nothing has been determined. But ESPN reported that Loh told the school's board of regents that Maryland and Rutgers will be Leaders, pushing Illinois to the Legends Division.

Or maybe Big Ten officials will use this opportunity to call a mulligan and go with the revolutionary "East" and "West" for its divisions.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Some of the comments from today SBD:

Rutgers AD Tim Pernetti said it is a "transformative day" for the school after it officially signed on to join the Big Ten Conference. Pernetti stressed the conference is "where Rutgers belongs – not just a good fit for us athletically, it's a good fit for us academically." He said, "The Big Ten Conference is the ultimate academic neighborhood to live in and we're now in that neighborhood. ... This is not just about collaboration on the fields of play. This is about collaboration at every level." The school's start date in the Big Ten is uncertain.

Big Ten Network's Dave Revsine said Rutgers joining the Big Ten "is a different situation then what we saw" with Maryland joining the conference. Revsine said Maryland was a "charter member of a league that has flourished through the years," and there was some "ambivalence there by people who felt very strongly about staying." Revsine: "I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of ambivalence here." He noted the Big East is a "sinking ship," and for Rutgers, "this is a chance to start anew in a much stronger league and a much better situation" (Big Ten Network, 11/20).

Rutgers plans to join the Big Ten along with Maryland in '14, though the Big East "requires 27 months' notification for departing members." The school will "have to negotiate a deal with the Big East to leave early" (ESPN.com, 11/20).

[WarriorDoc]

So with two teams recently out (ND and Rutgers), what kind of clause do we add into the TV contract since we're two big market teams down?  Or does everyone think the Big East will dissolve before then?

[Pakuni]

Nate Silver says the Big 10 is stupid.
And that guy is never wrong.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/expanding-eastward-could-dilute-big-ten-brand/

"The Big Ten may have expanded the size of its revenue pie, but it will be dividing it 14 ways rather than 12, and among family members that have less history of sitting down at the table with one another. In seeking to expand its footprint eastward, the conference may have taken a step in the wrong direction."

[ChicosBailBonds]

Those Michigan alums are watching Michigan no matter who they play.  They won't be watching Rutgers vs Indiana though.

Remember that those Michigan alums in New York may not be able to watch Michigan, or may have to subscribe to a higher tier from their television provider at less dollars for the league in order to watch those games.  Instead of giving the Big Ten Network $0.85 per customer, they may only be getting $0.10.  Now they add New York market and suddenly those Michigan alums are paying higher rates to see their team.  They may also go down to Rutgers to attend the game.

"The top two cities for Michigan alumni are, not surprisingly, Detroit and Chicago. The third and fourth? New York and Washington, D.C.. The top regions for Ohio State alumni outside the Buckeye State are Washington, D.C./northern Virginia and New York. It's the same for much of the Big Ten."